Did the ''Vikings'' defeat the Germanics or not?

[Sifjar]

Will the '' Vikings'' defeats the Germanics or not?



The Goth






The Saxons




Anglo-Saxons




Teutons

[Menydh]

Could you define both "Vikings" and "Germanics" in the intended context? Or according to your views.

[Carnyx]

You mean: were the Vikings stronger than the Germanic peoples you have listed? Would they have defeated them? Or will the Vikings become the most famous Germanics and erase the remembrance of others from popular mythos?

[Lutiferre]

It isnt unreasonable to distinguish between "North Germanic" tribes, or preferably Scandinavian tribes and Germanic tribes.

But I dont know if thats what you mean in this context?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

It isnt unreasonable to distinguish between "North Germanic" tribes, or preferably Scandinavian tribes and Germanic tribes.

Apparently, the relations between Northern, Western and Eastern Germanics are not equally clear for everyone: http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c61705/G...;20peoples.pdf

Why would you prefer to say Scandinavian than Northern Germanic?

By the way, since you have them in your profile.. what do you think that the Cimbri were?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Apparently, the relations between Northern, Western and Eastern Germanics are not equally clear for everyone: http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c61705/Germanic%20peoples.pdf

Why would you prefer to say Scandinavian than Northern Germanic?

By the way, since you have them in your profile.. what do you think that the Cimbri were?

I myself live in the region that the Cimbri originated, and have family in Himmerland, that take pride in the family tales of being descendants of the original Cimbri.

I am not sure what the Cimbri "were", when it comes to linguistics.

But the uncertainty associated with the Cimbri is exactly a good reason to refer to "North Germanic" tribes as "Scandinavian tribes", and "Germanic paganism" as "Scandinavian paganism", because thats where it originates - same with Viking culture.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

But the uncertainty associated with the Cimbri is exactly a good reason to refer to "North Germanic" tribes as "Scandinavian tribes", and "Germanic paganism" as "Scandinavian paganism", because thats where it originates - same with Viking culture.

I'm left wondering.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I'm left wondering.

Perhaps you are not familiar with what I was describing.

But the uncertainty associated with the Cimbri is exactly a good reason to refer to "North Germanic" tribes as "Scandinavian tribes", and "Germanic paganism" as "Scandinavian paganism", because thats where it originates - same with Viking culture.

Wikipedia has a section that sums it up pretty effectively:
Cimbri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is uncertainty about whether the Cimbri were Celtic or Germanic; linguistic uncertainty. And there is reason to believe both things.

That is why I suggested we refer to tribes in the Scandinavian peninsula as Scandinavian tribes rather than North Germanic tribes, due to the associated uncertainty about the Cimbri Celtic-Germanic question. There I answered your question:

Why would you prefer to say Scandinavian than Northern Germanic?

Whats more, "Germanic" paganism should be referred to as "Nordic" or "Scandinavian" paganism, since thats where it originates, and not anywhere else in the Germanic areas.

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Could you define both "Vikings" and "Germanics" in the intended context? Or according to your views.

Germanic just a bunch of '' Indo European language manipulation'' that all

"There is no abrupt change, which is what we could reasonably expect. An explanation is that a Germanic people were already in Orkney and Shetland well before 790AD. We don’t see one Germanic people, the Vikings, arrive because a very similar Germanic people, the English, were already here.

“These early Anglo-Saxon settlers stayed where they were. When the Vikings arrived they merged with them and with the other ethnic groups of Orkney and Shetland. Because their language was so similar to that spoken by the Vikings there is a process of language mixing, which means that Norn reflects these English language roots, along with the Viking language roots.

“Among the already rich ethnic heritage of every Orcadian can now be counted a few early English genes. Orcadians are descended from the very earliest English inhabitants of the British Isles, present in Orkney a century or more earlier than their invasion of England.”

I can see in this text the definition of Germanic are '' Viking are been articulated differently, like I say culture shifted so these days every things Germanic just a puking stories

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

You mean: were the Vikings stronger than the Germanic peoples you have listed? Would they have defeated them? Or will the Vikings become the most famous Germanics and erase the remembrance of others from popular mythos?

Yes the one on my list or you could always argue?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

Perhaps you are not familiar with what I was describing.

Ha! No, not at all. More like I did suspect that much.

You see.. knowing the possible non Germanic adscription of the Cimbri, I recently thought that it could be related to the percentage of R1b y-chromosome haplogroup in Denmark, unusual for a Germanic population.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Germanic just a bunch of '' Indo European language manipulation'' that all

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the concept of meta-ethnicities as it is often used. I would call that meta-linguistic groups. And if you noticed, my idea of ethnicity (Hispano-Occitan) is closer to your idea of it (Scandinavian). Where others would use 'Romance' and 'Germanic' respectively.

I can see in this text the definition of Germanic are '' Viking are been articulated differently, like I say culture shifted so these days every things Germanic just a puking stories

From all I know, Viking was a phenomenon that occurred in a certain time period in Scandinavia, by which people embarked on a trip for different reasons: finding new lands, raiding and plundering, or trading. This was apparently more often among the second-born as the first-born inherited.

Not different to the phenomenon of the Conquistador in Spain. And also here the second-born (segundones) had to set themselves to buscar fama y fortuna (search fame and fortune). While the inheritance went to the Primogénito or the Hereu.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Germanic just a bunch of '' Indo European language manipulation'' that all

Or maybe it is "indoeuropean" and similar concepts that are mostly a bunch of crap. Because there is only scarce evidence of phenomena that are themselves only a part of what is Germanic, I think that the excesses in indoeuropeanism that are so commonplace are rather silly.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Or maybe it is "indoeuropean" and similar concepts that are mostly a bunch of crap. Because there is only scarce evidence of phenomena that are themselves only a part of what is Germanic, I think that the excesses in indoeuropeanism that are so commonplace are rather silly.

To say that with so little argumentation certainly disputes your level of intellectual reliability and/or capability. It is simply unscientific, unmethodological and some would say an attack against reasoning itself, to suggest something like that, in a such unargumentative manner.

The response to that in anthropological circles would be tremendously aggressive.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Ha! No, not at all. More like I did suspect that much.

You see.. knowing the possible non Germanic adscription of the Cimbri, I recently thought that it could be related to the percentage of R1b y-chromosome haplogroup in Denmark, unusual for a Germanic population.

That is an interesting fact. It definitely deserves more research - perhaps population geneticists have already noticed this, but I havent read any mentions of it.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the concept of meta-ethnicities as it is often used. I would call that meta-linguistic groups. And if you noticed, my idea of ethnicity (Hispano-Occitan) is closer to your idea of it (Scandinavian). Where others would use 'Romance' and 'Germanic' respectively

Relevant to what you two are discussing there, see this post of mine: National Identities and the Question of Europe, concerning common invalid concepts of ethnicity.

Originally Posted by Degenuicide

First, your claim that Europe is a pretty diverse place. That is simply incorrect. If any continent is homogeneous, Europe is the closest. That is another argument against "sub-races".

See this study: Genes, peoples,*and*languages -- Cavalli-Sforza 94 (15): 7719 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
And this: http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

I am aware of haplogroups. Haplogroups, though, support my claim that prevalence frequency of phenotypes are insignificant, and sub-races thus dont exist - you will find that there is no correlation between haplogroups and pigmentation level and other phenotypical features claimed to be "sub-races".



Whats more, Y-DNA haplogroups and mtDNA haplogroups dont even include autosomal markers, and thus could never tell the full story of genetic variation in Europe. Therefore you cannot use them as basis for sub-races either, only indicators that dont tell the full story of genetic distance.

Something like this autosomal DNA plot of genetic distances, is therefore just as valid in that debate. And you can clearly see both different clusters and ethnicities that are clearly represented with their natural correlations. Of all ethnic groups, the European cluster has the least genetic variation and diversity.




That there are sub-races, that are often claimed to be measurable through physical features (phenotype).


No, talking about ethnicity. Europe has the least genetic variation, and other ethnicities have more variation than Europe has on a intra-continental level. Therefore, yes you can subgroup Europe into mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups, but they dont represent genetic distance or variation, and thus dont represent real ethnicities. However, they can be used to represent linguistic groups (Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic) but again, we're not talking ethnicity.


Of course it doesnt work that way, because people assume that a constructed ethnicity is a real ethnicity; and ethnicities are often constructed out of a wide range of things. Such as: tribal group, linguistic group, country, linguistic subgroup, etc.

Genetically and scientifically speaking, most of Europe is of the same ethnicity. Meaning that most of Europe has both the same ethnolinguistic origin (almost all descendants of (proto)-Indo-Europeans, and a few Finno-Ugric countries that are genetically identical to PIE-descendants with the exception of Lapps and Samis, and finally Iberians, but their true descendants are few in numbers) and most of Western Europe has similar haplogroup frequencies and there is very low genetic distance between countries in all of Europe - in many cases nothing that cant be ascribed to natural genetic variation, and definetly nothing that correlates with any defined "sub-race" or lingustic sub-group (with minor exceptions, such as certain Finno-Ugric tribes, that arent Indo-European) or ethnicity.

The only correlation with linguistic groups would be haplogroups as I explained, but they dont represent genetic distance.


I think whites are the combination of the namely un-mixed descendants of (proto-)Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians and Iberians, that together represent an ethnolinguistic group that have a variety of common cultural, physical and racial traits. White is just a word for it; by the politically correct, white has been replaced and are referred to as Caucasians. I dont think the exact word is the subject of concern.