Romans said that Gauls were more civilizable than Germanic barbarians...

Romans said that Gauls were more civilizable than Germanic barbarians, and it turns out their characterizations pretty much follow % West Asian DNA to a T.

Really makes me think.

Other urls found in this thread:

researchgate.net/publication/220014360_Rindermann_H_Sailer_M_and_Thompson_2009_The_impact_of_smart_fractions_cognitive_ability_of_politicians_and_average_competence_of_peoples_on_social_development_Talent_Development_and_Excellence_1_3-25
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R2
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tewtéh₂
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Well, civilization originated in West Asia.

>burger education

In your opinion, how does finnish character differ from English or french?

>West Asian

Not the same as modern West Asian. They killed off the civilized people there.

Nice BS pic

Yamnaya was R1b like the French and the Spaniards while the guys on your map are said to be closer from them despiste not being their sons

pre-R1b French were miserable turbocucks and turbosluts so they didn't manage to compete with the R1b but still passed on their cuck genes to you which explains your actions in WW2

>t. surrender your land to russian

We regained our land, while you're here impotently watching Russian purchasing your land and nigger fucking your women in interracial night-club

Fuck off, Pekka, during your whole history, you were the bitch of another country

Franks/Troy autist fuck off. The only thing you're right about is that R1b is superior.

Neolithic farmer DNA isn't West Asian, they were isolated Anatolians mixed with WHG

Genetics say otherwise. West Asian ancestry increases as you get closer to, well, West Asia. Even in modern populations.

You sound butthurt, but paternal ancestry =/= genetic relatedness.

Romans said arabs made best slaves and Germans the worst, makes you think.

Romans also said Sardinians and Corsicans made horrible slaves considering they either killed their masters or themselves rather than being subjugated

>Bergamo

Truly a mysterious people

It's funny that your inferiority complex made you assume certain things about me that aren't true.

Like that I was using "barbarian" in a negative context.

Early Neolithic farmers in Europe came from Anatolia but represented a genetic type that is extinct except in Sardinia. Balkanoids and Italians are mixed with modern Middle Easterners though and they aren't exactly the dominant force in western civilization at the current era.

>t. bastard

Patrilineal line is everytime

As a R1b in can rightfully that i'm the one that conquered Europe, while non-R1b can't

We're pure Pannonians

>Early Neolithic farmers in Europe came from Anatolia but represented a genetic type that is extinct except in Sardinia.

True, but also true for everything else that existed at that time; not a meaningful statement.

My actual "point" was that maybe there's something inherent to this DNA that makes people tamer and more "civilizable". Not trying to have a dick measuring contest like most of the replyers are.

>Balkanoids and Italians are mixed with modern Middle Easterners though and they aren't exactly the dominant force in western civilization at the current era.

S. Italians sure, dunno about Balkanites, but N. Italians have very little modern ME ancestry. Definitely a lot of ancient WestAsian though.

Also, Blue Banana says pretty much the same of high HG ancestry groups. Something like 80% of European civilization came from areas with substantial WA ancestry and relatively low HG ancestry. Scandinavians also have relatively low IQs compared to Anglos:

researchgate.net/publication/220014360_Rindermann_H_Sailer_M_and_Thompson_2009_The_impact_of_smart_fractions_cognitive_ability_of_politicians_and_average_competence_of_peoples_on_social_development_Talent_Development_and_Excellence_1_3-25

Finland actually matches up to Anglos.

Italy also groups in perfectly with Scandinavia, despite high amounts of Arab/Maghrebi blood in the south. I'd suspect the north Italian average should be on par with Anglos.

>y actual "point" was that maybe there's something inherent to this DNA that makes people tamer and more "civilizable"

Not really, considering Sardinians were a pain in the ass for Roman for several centuries despite being outnumbered, also read this:

I highly doubt it is.

It was mostly R1a that conquered l1 people in Scandinavia and later made them raid entire Europe.

Anglo-Saxons were originally l1, not R1b like native Celtic population of Britain. So R1b-U106 can't be considered "Germanic".

>civilizable

i.e. compatible with Roman culture

You're not looking far down enough the line. Genetically similar people tend to carry the same cultural memes, especially back then, when there was no internet and people seldom had access to the cultural memes of others who lived hundreds of miles away.

It's a no brainer that people who had similar culture to Romans were more easily integrated. It's also why the EU is retarded in allowing millions of Muslims who are incompatible with European values to """stay""" as refugees (read: settle). For all the shit I hate about South Americans and Mexicans, at least they're Catholic.

>We regained our land, while you're here impotently watching Russian purchasing your land

>France

english are even more r1b than france though

We didn't sell our land, we simply sold our colony, and we had the Whole Europe to fight as a reason


THIS

You retarded, Sup Forumscuck? I'm not talking about haplogroups, I'm talking about the unintentional hilarity of a Frenchman whining about others buying/selling land.

>It was mostly R1a that conquered l1 people in Scandinavia and later made them raid entire Europe
If you're using R1a conquering I1 as an argument for why R1b isn't superior, then you clearly didn't read your own image. It says there that R1b came to Scandinavia after R1a, leading to the Nordic bronze age and ultimately Proto-Germanic. This means that R1b in effect conquered the R1a Indo-Europeans who had previously conquered the I1 Scandinavians.

So if anyone was "using" the conquered I1 people to raid Europe, it was the R1b conquerors. Although this is ridiculous because in actuality they would have been simply assimilated into Indo-European society and that would have been the end of it.

Also it's wrong to imply that Anglo-Saxons were "originally I1", they were clearly a mix of I1, R1b and to a lesser extent R1a. In all likelihood they would have had more R1b than I1 as well.

Nope you're around 50% while we are around 60-80%

R1b was already brought with Corded Ware. With the second expansion they were simply assmilated, just like Celts in Germany.

SAXONS WERE l1. And nothing will change that.

>SAXONS WERE l1

l2b

Saxons that came to Britain were l1, not l2b.

>r1a r1b cucks hurr I'm "aryan"

Let me introduce you to the POO PILL.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R2

All this shit you're talking about (pun intended) is irrelevant in the face of the POO PILL.

It's fine to talk about stuff that happened 10k years ago, but go back another 18k and you find out that R haplos are LITERAL POO IN LOOS

Please don't pollute my pristine I1 genetics with your inferior poo. The "aryan" invasion was bad enough, and gave us the shitty world we have today.

m8

do you even know where the term "aryan" is from?

Why do you intend to speak in the subjects you have no idea of?

me in the middle

>R1b was already brought with Corded Ware.
No it wasn't, or at least not in any significant amount. R1b and R1a are roughly equal in frequency in modern Scandinavia, while R1a in corded ware held a strong majority. The fact is that the vast majority of R1b in Scandinavians came later, after Corded Ware, bringing with it Pre-Proto-Germanic.

Also stop being so stupid, no population by the time of the Anglo-Saxons was purely I1, not even Scandinavian ones, they were all mixed heavily with R1a and R1b. Anglo-Saxons were majority R1b and I1, not exclusively I1.

Iran or something? It's irrelevant, it's all poo. Anyway, I'm talking about deep genetic lineage, not superficial linguistic stuff that happened 4k years ago.

It's not a coincidence that the BEST European countries to live in have the LEAST "aryan" ancestry.

R haplogroups BTFO.

If R1 are pooniloos then I1 are Arabs

Romans, Greeks, French, british, Persians, Hindus all had aryan identities.

>French, british
R1berians are not Aryan

Nope we have anglo saxon samples from England and and they were I1, Thuringians are I2

Aryan countries are the best in the world, no matter where aryans go.

You're the one fucking stupid here.

They literally digged out samples in England and Saxons were l1 mostly.

Mostly is a very broad word. What are we talking here? 50%? 60% 95%?

>Anglo-Saxons were majority R1b and I1
No, they were I1. Brits have an excess of R1b because of C*lts.

We have a saxon sample in England and it is I1 while Roman Britain show all kind of R1b, and we also have Saxon samples from Germany and Saxons were around 50-70% I1

Are you fucking retarded?
Danes have more R1b than I1

The samples arent even in the double digits, but the french and polish poster here have some kind of identity issue where they obsess over there haplogroup so they use it as some kind of proof that only I1 is germanic and R1b and R1a can't be

>a saxon sample
>a
>1 (one)

>conveniently "forgot" the next part

Saxons were I1, stop being butthurt about you're Celtic ancestry

You're the one here who doesn't understand shit.

R1b-U106 in England is Celtic, doesn't matter what anyone says, it isn't Germanic.
No one ever claimed R1a and R1b can't be Germanic, since they've both created Germanic people from l1 paleolithic hunter-gatherers, Cro-Magnons from pre IE expansions. R1a and R1b were obviously an elite and brought war-like culture with them. Doesn't change the fact that Ancient Germanis was mostly l1 and it became R1b majority due to Celtic Expansions.

Stop being a fucking twat and read more.

That's enough to entice him and his delusional fantasy, you have to understand a lot of posters here don't care about science, they don't care about history, they dont care about facts. They have identity and emotional problems and haplogroups help them we wuz and make them feel powerful than their virgin selves

Ancient Germans were G

I fucked read that stupid polack(we wuz germanic) posts for months, yours too. You don't understand basic shit and yet decide to spout your non-sense while insulting others.

Fuck off back to reading basic shit and untill then don't even try to speak about things you have no idea of.

Danes are mosly Cimbrians and Teutons, both were Celts, spoke a Celtic languages(see above), and worshiped Celtic Gods(see gundestrup cauldron)

Cimbrians called the Baltic Sea in their language "Morimarusam which" is Gaulish for "Dead Sea", and their names are Celts :

Cimbrians = Com brogos = Compatriot
Teutones = Teuta = People

>R1b-U106 in England is Celtic
>doesn't matter what anyone says, it isn't Germanic.
So basically you're saying you have to be right no matter what? Okay we got it, perfectly ties into this>No one ever claimed R1a and R1b can't be Germanic
Yes there is a french and polish and """swedish""" poster who all say this there is even another thread up about this on Sup Forums by the diaspora in sweden

>Doesn't change the fact that Ancient Germanis was mostly l1 and it became R1b majority due to Celtic Expansions.
That's another assumption by you, majority of samples from bronze age Germany are R1b and R1a. Zero I1 has been found in ancient Scandinavia and the celts and slavs didnt even exist until after the proto germanic groups

>Stop being a fucking twat and read more.
Stop being butthurt

They're obviously Celt rapebabies too

Educate yourself and then participate in a discussion. You have no basic knowledge about any of this whatsoever.

If you claim that things that were already proven are false because you think they are, then we have nothing to talk about.

So you're saying Anglo-Saxons were Celts now?

Not really; I diverged from J waay earlier than R1 diverged from whatever unique subclades were present in India/Afghanistan.

Arabs are far better than Indians anyway. If Amerikike wasn't jewed so hard Islamic terrorism wouldn't even exist.

it's true tho

Ancient Germans were mostly a mix of Pre-IEs and various IE invaders, they also borrowed their languages/gods/cultures from these invaders

>I fucked read that stupid polack(we wuz germanic) posts for months, yours too.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I never post about genetics unless I see one of the delusional tards here bring it up

>ou don't understand basic shit and yet decide to spout your non-sense while insulting others.
No I just correct when you people go into your fantasies based on inferiority towards Germans or who knows what else, I dont even want to know

>Fuck off back to reading basic shit and untill then don't even try to speak about things you have no idea of.
Your made up fantasies arent "basic shit" sorry

More like I1 and I2, first G2a cucked them and then R1

POO IN LOO

LEARN TO POO

Nope

Saxons come from Germany and were I1, i'm just saying that the celtic tribes settled in Denmark explain why Danes have more R1b than other Scandis

Teuta isn't stricly Celtic word, it has cognate in Germanic, Italic and Baltic languages.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tewtéh₂

Again just because you like to indulge yourself with the fantasy that ancient Germanic groups didnt have R1b and R1a because you inherently dislike germans and you have some inferiority complex towards them doesnt make it basic knowledge.

>R1b-U106 in England is Celtic
No it isn't. It's existence in pre-Saxon Roman Britain can be explained by a number of factors:
1. low sample size
2. R1b-U106 appearing in low numbers Celtic populations
3. Germanic peoples being brought over as slaves or as part of the Roman army to defend Roman Britannia against Celtic raids.

Now, onto why R1b-U106 is primarily Germanic. Don't you find it a bit odd that R1b-U106 peaks in populations that aren't Celtic? Scandinavia was never Celtic except for a number of Irish slaves brought over to Norway, explaining why it's slightly higher there compared to Sweden. The Netherlands was never Celtic except for the very south. R1b-U106 is virtually non-existent in France, Spain and Ireland despite these being core Celtic territories. Moreover, the areas in which R1b peaks in continental Europe are the areas where the Anglo-Saxons primarily migrated from. The spread of R1b-U106 also matches perfectly with the Germanic migrations of the Migration Period, a great example of this being North-Western Iberia which the Suebians migrated to. Signs of Germanic expansion even show up in the Baltic states, most likely due to the Teutonic Knights.

Angles came from Denmark. Old Saxonland is by the German Baltic shore.

The funny thing is that I've taken a genetics test and I received R1b-U106 and they even say in the test that it is germanic and that the specific subclade I have is most common in Norway yet this french guy reads on some blog(yes a blog, that's where he found this theory) that it is celtic and denies it

Also I'd just like to add that R1b is surprisingly low in modern day Denmark because its original Anglo-Saxon inhabitants mostly migrated to England and were essentially "replaced" by the more I1-heavy Danes.

Yeah it's ridiculous. Not surprising either that this bullshit is coming from a Pole and a Frenchman either, two nationalities known for their hatred of Germanic peoples.

Pic related is genuine Germanic DNA

It match with the Germanic Expansion + the Traditional Germanic Homeland, ad for R1b, it match the Celtic Expansion + the Traditional Celtic Homeland

Have you ever considered the idea that there might be more than one genetic marker for Germanic peoples?

>I diverged from J waay earlier than R1 diverged
What difference does that make when the distance between R1 and the rest is already 30,000+ years?
>India/Afghanistan.
R is obviously from Central Asia, like P and Q.
>Arabs are far better than Indians anyway
But they can't beat Aryans, no.

Recent ethno-linguistic groups don't solely own haplgtoups and their subclades that are older then them by thousands of years, try and comprehend this fact first

How can it be Germanic if it's pre-Indo-European and those people certainly didn't speak Indo-European language prior the arrival of R1a/R1b people? l1 are mere aborigines of that region who assimilated. Are you seriously so dumb?

He believes that the french are trojans, so yes he is that dumb.

We are U N I Q U E !

Germans were described as homogenous by ancient writters and claim to the descent of one ancestor, thus, Actual Germans come from one bloodline

>be more than one genetic marker for Germanic peoples?

The markers you try to claim are either Celts or Slavs, you're just butthurt because you "WUZ NOT PURE" as claimed

It's from an aboriginE who assimilated. A single guy who lived maybe in Netherlands or something.
All known I1 has a tmrca of under 5k years. If it was so fucking common where are the subclades outside the tmrca?

I2 is the actual aboriginal haploshit of Scandinavia.

Well to be fair nearly all of European R1a/R1b dates to bronze age.

They simply adopted the langage of the IE, some perhaps even mixed with them but it does not give them the rigtht to claim other people's Haplogroup as Germanic

>Germans were described as homogenous by ancient writters and claim to the descent of one ancestor, thus, Actual Germans come from one bloodline
So because Tacitus who had never even met a german in his life or been to the region claimed that germans had one ancestor it means that there's is only germanic haplogroup? Very sharp, we need more historians like you in the field.

>claim other people's Haplogroup as Germanic
No one is doing that. You're the one who is always posting claiming that every subclade of R1b is exclusively French. Do not project on to others what you believe.

t. butthurt abbonigger

>Tacitus

Not just Tacitus EVERY AUTHORS be it Romans, French, Arabs, Byzantines, described the Germans as blond and red haired

Even the Germanic themselves did so

And hair colour is related to haplogroups how, exactly?

feels good being a Frank

I feel sorry for non-Franks

They still have related subclades which exist somewhere.
People blow out I1's significance, it's either just a big coincidence it's common or natural selection. There was never any "I1 people" anywhere, no more than few dozen anyway but some people think they were the source of Germanic culture and linguistic substrate.

Germans around 11th century AD

No idea what you're getting at here but for sure now we begin to enter the realm of pseudo-science and we begin to abandon all reason. I hope you know slavs, sarmatians, scythians, celts and thracians were also described as red haired. Cato was as well, maybe he was german too

He actually believes ancient authors weren't biased and were experts in haplogroups. They could simply determine your haplogroup just by looking at you.

Basically his entire beliefs are based around medieval paintings and hair color, he might be legitimately sick because he posts about this constantly across three separate boards.

>There was never any "I1 people" anywhere
This is a fantasy I1 aboriginals tell themselves, they'd rather be conquerors rather than the cucked. But the fact of the matter is, I1 is thwarted by R1 in all countries.

>And hair colour is related to haplogroups how, exactly?

Like that

>Nordic are tall, fair eyed, and fair haired
>Nordic are 1
>Germanic were described as Nordic(fair eyes, fair hair)
>Germanic are Nordic
>Germanic are I1

By this logic the ancient Gauls, who you love to claim all had fair hair and blue eyes, must have been I1 as well. lmao.

There are zero scientific studies that positively correlate haplogroups with hair color, eye color etc. I hope you realize what you're saying sounds like complete gibberish to anyone but yourself right now