I've thought about why are Germanics richer than Slavs and Meds and I think I've got the answer. For some reason Germanics were forced to evolve in a way which promoted males grouping together to defeat their enemies,get food and women. Over the years they got rid of many inefficient ways of cooperation which is why even though lets say the English are both capable of brutal individualism if it's worth it(which they usually settle by war or some sort of struggle) and banding together to fuck up other peoples for their own gain. They think about their children's future far more than the other groups and can sacrifice themselves to make sure their offspring has the best chance of success. They also form beliefs like morality to set stiff rules within their society, exactly why the protestants were Germanic and revolted against the corruption of the church, a corrupt Med institution. Why was it the Germanics and not others who wanted to become Protestant though? Both Slavs and Meds lack morality or the desire to conquer other peoples with the help of their countrymen which is why they are used by Germanics themselves. This is why eg. Poles emigrate in such big numbers, they not only not believe that they can work to make a better life in their country but they don't consider their belief to be morally wrong. To them it's a natural state of affairs. It is interesting however that Germans have this mentality too, just a bit less though, Throughout history they were divided in small, warring kingdoms and were unable to cooperate. They still have no morality but they hide their barbarism through their substitute for God and morality, the state. They also show the same willingness to migrate to other countries and not build their own, like their emigration to USA, Switzerland, South American Countries ,Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and even England itself historically. What do you think, what is the cause of some groups having strong morality and racial cohesion while others are willing to do anything like women do? What made some groups be able to internalise morality and cooperate with each other?
I've thought about why are Germanics richer than Slavs and Meds and I think I've got the answer...
Other urls found in this thread:
The eastern feudal systems were more repressive of the serfs and stifled innovation while the west embraced patents which led to industrialisation in the west rather than the east
the rest is history
Except Meds conquered the entire Mediterranean in the greatest empire ever. Meds also conquered over half of the Americas, parts of Africa, and a bit of Asia. It's just been Northern Europe's turn to sit on top. Everyone gets their day.
As for Slavs, you got me there.
Misconception. Meds weren't that interested in conquering. Punic and Gallic wars were forced existential conflicts, and when they won, they had a quasi-empire. Mostly they tried to built walls.
Also Germans got taught by Benedictines to consider labor holy. The ancient world considers labor to be slave duty. It's hard to overturn that.
funny how celt britain basically conquered half the word intellectually and physically
pls stop, I can only cringe so much
meds invented the fucking concept of military conquest in the first place, they sometimes built walls because they had conquered so much that by the logistic standards of the time the empire was too huge to keep together
Gas the Slavs
Those Greeks and Romans were of no consequence. Just a speed bump.
It has to do with:
1. Holy Roman Empire was a successor of the Roman Empire, with technology transferred from the italians to the germans.
2. The already existing industrious culture of germanics, as well as resources (iron, timber) in the area.
The slavs, at least got the ruskies, land is much poorer and they got conquered by the mongols, thus their system becomes much more repressed and asiatic.
The poles meanwhile have some success, with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth being a regional power at the 17-18th century.
eastern europeans are just more retarded than western europeans, it's simple
Except when the anglos just let their daughters be child prostitutes to rapid paki gangs.
Never change snowniggers
Never change matzaniggers
Utter bullshit. Historically illiterate bullshit.
The Romans almost always provoked wars with the Gauls and other Celtic peoples. Caesar was one of the worst examples of inventing suprious reasons to conquer the Gallic tribes.
Also, I don't normally come to the defense of the Phonecians, but have you even bothered reading what started the Punic wars?
It was Roman aggression in almost every case. The Romans repeatedly violated their own treaties.
The reason why I bring this up is the stupidity of your statement. You should NOT have brought up the Phoenecians considering that the Third Punic War was completely without justification and was simply the Romans curb stomping the Carthaginians and taking their land.
Mind you, I'm not saying that this was good or bad. It happened, big deal. But I cannot tolerate historical inaccuracy.
While interesting to some extent, I think you are wrong.
To Germanics the highest virtues are purity and individualism. Thus they are obsessed with hypocrisy, their socialism is about the individual's right to bugger what it wants, and their religion is Protestantism, also known in extremes as 'Puritanism' because it was concerned with purity before all else. Note this does not mean that Germanics cannot be hypocrites or impure themselves; they are just obsessed with the concepts and their politics are shaped by it.
The Latins were more concerned with community. They don't care if people are corrupt or not so long as they are overall looking out for the good of the community. They don't care if their leaders are hypocrites, so long as they look out for the community. Thus they tend towards fascism, socialism and other collective ideologies; and for them it is about making life better for the family and wider community, in contrast to the Germanic's mostly caring about their individual right to buggery or murder the unborn. Their Church was about uplifting the community overall, and little care is given to the degeneracy that priests engage in, nor in the everyday pursuit of piety by the laymen. Note this does not mean that there cannot be extremely individualistic or 'eccentric' people in Latin nations, or that they cannot be 'pure'; they just don't particularly care about these things when it comes to politics.
Slavs are more like Latins than Germanics, but their community is based less around 'family' and more 'tribal affiliation' because they have constantly had to deal with other tribes as neighbours (be it Germans, Greeks or Turks). Again that's not to say that Slavs cannot be family oriented; but where Latins largely seek to maintain the position of their own family, even if at the expense of other Latins; Slavs are more concerned with their own tribe's survival with their enemies being the other tribes.
Not really. And they invented or even had to reinvent much of the technology.
This is a kike
Were not the celts constantly launching raids on roman lands and trade routes?
The celts were horrible barbarians and their decsendants among anglos and the french are just as bad.
i know what it derives from, but most modern anglos are not of angle descent, nor saxon for that matter. I read genetic tests a few years ago and most anglos are celtic natives (which you can tell because most anglos don't look anything like nordic people)
It's a misconception that Spain conquered an entire continent and then some creating one of the largest empires ever? It's a misconception that Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean and built an empire?
wew aren't we off to a good start
yes that's why they used child soldiers at the battle of berlin, when everything was surely lost?
czechs formed the first protestant movement in the holy roman empire
in conclusion kys germ
No but yes but also no.
I will explain.
The Celts did indeed raid Roman lands, particularly back in 390 BC in what was certainly an unprovoked attack by the Senones Tribe. They burned Rome a little and the Romans paid them to leave, which they did. And yes, there was much low level raiding by tribed in the early Roman Republic. Just as tribal peoples have always raided their neighbors for real or percieved slights to their honour. (and the Romans did this too, btw)
As for trade, the Romans and Celts had very amicable trade relationships when and where there was no warfare between them.
However, the conquests of Gaul were completely unprovoked aggression by the Romans.
The Gallic Celts had a more or less stable relationship with Rome at this time. Enter Caesar who had maneuvered his way to the governorship. Upon arrival, he immediately began raising legions and planning the conquest of Gaul. In 58 BC he instigated a conflict when the Helvetti (who were fleeing a Germanic tribe) asked to be allowed through Roman lands. Caesar refused and they decided to go around Roman lands. However he then pursued them into Gallic lands and began attacking them. Finally, he provoked a battle and used this as a justification to invade Gaul. He almost lost the battle. Then he used the request for aid from another Gallic tribe against the Germans as an excuse to start wintering his troops in Gaul. When the Celts protested, he attacked them and burned their lands. On and on this went until he effectively annexed the entire region into his province. Then the Gauls revolted and after a tense few years, he crushed the revolt.
Caesar had almost no justification for his invasion of Gaul. However Caesar was a gentleman compared to other Romans such as Crassus who literally just marched up to the border of Parthia and began conquering it without even the pretext of a justification.
Crassus was however not the norm and most Romans felt that one needed at least some plausable pretext for invading another nation. But usually these pretexts were about as legitimate as Saddam Husseign's weapons of mass destruction or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
That's funny because the French are less Celtic than the Britons. The French are the descendants of the Franks who were a Germanic tribe and the Anglos are the descendants of the Angles which are also a Germanic tribe. If you want to get a taste of Celts today, merely look at the Cornish (sort of) the Irish, the Bretons (not Britons), and the Welsh. Also the Scotts to some extent.
*annexed your Benelux*
I speak in Latin to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse
That is not a picture of the average Englishman.
This is a scientific picture of the average Englishman and woman.
Compare and contrast with the Germans of whom they descend.
And here is a video-documentary that is an excellent example of Englishmen doing English things for science.
There is Celtic admixture in the English. However, the Island was virtually depopulated and absolutely conquered by the Saxons and Angles. So much so that they replaced both the language and religion of the natives.
Here are the pics. This is what the average Englishman and his wife look like.
And Rome would rebuke you and say every war she fought was a defensive one. Even Caesar was very careful to wait for an opportunity to construct an "invasion of Roman territory" which he got when the Helvetii tribe tried to migrate from Switzerland to Spain. Of course the nobles had long since stopped giving a fuck inwardly to such archaic notions of honor, but outwardly they were still forced to adher to a moral code of action.
Yes. Yes indeed.
However, you know of how Caesar twisted things to suit his agenda. Any reasonable person would point out how aggressive the Romans were. You don't conquer the entire known world by accident.
Both English sexes have become more feminine compared to their German ancestors.
They were proto-Slavs, same with the Armorican Veneti that Ceasar encountered in present day Britanny that share a name with the Slavic Vistula Veneti, kys germ
Also the Vindelici that they bordered, all cognates of Veneti which has nothing to do with Germany
This is true. You can tell an Englishman from a German from the shape of his jaw line. Among other things.
Germans have much more angular shapes.
It is very interesting to note.
Who here would prefer the whites (European races collectively) overtake the whole world and genocide all the non-whites?
Veneti owned the area, and they later went on to become the Vistula Veneti that turned into the Slavic Wends and Varni and Vandals
Like I said there, Helvetti and the Vindelici is a cognate of Veneti - when the Romans reached present day Switzerland in Windisch, which is also related to Wend or Veneti (where the Helvetii were housed) they named their encampments Vindonissa in recognition of their realm.
Also, Vindonissa connected Augsburg, which was then called Vindelicorum, the Germanic tribes were far, far up North.
Germanics, Slavs, and Meds are virtually identical genetically.
Whatever your answer to this question is, likely aren't it.
No. The Vandals were Germanic and came from southern Scandinavia originally, same with the Goths.
And no one knows what the Vistula Veneti called themselves. Maybe they did call themselves the Veneti, but probably not.
In any case, simple logic should be applied when talking about these Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic tribes. The Veneti proper lived in western France, the Helvetti lived in Switzerland, and the Goths and Vandals lived in Southern Scandinavia/northern Germany
Do you really believe that ALL of these peoples were Slavic?
If so, Slavic might just be a synonym for "European"
Did you know that there was an Italian tribe also called the Veneti? And Venice derives its name from these people.
The Slavic language is about as far removed from the Celtic languages as you can get in the European language group. And while we don't know for certain that the Veneti spoke a Celtic language there is plenty of supporting evidence. Not least of which is the fact that they had numerous ties with their fellow Celtic tribes.
OP has a terrible conceptual framework, but holy shit your bullshit takes the cake. Nobody can be this ignorant on human genetics, especially here on Zig Forums. Ugh, I can't even™
Not so clear as you think. Eustache Mullins proposed the idea of the name going back to Phoenicia. Fonizia, Fonezia, Fenezia, it's just vocal. The Phoenicians were all over the Med, it's quite possible that during the times of Roman expansion they had a long-existing and quasi-assimilated trade colony at that excellent natural harbor.
This is also possible
No, they are not identical although Czechs and Slovaks have a lot of Germanic admixture in there given their history which is true in a few other places as well. In any case native Europeans are white no more brother wars.
Of course, and vice versa, although genetics ≠ nationality. There are no "German genes" or "Slovak genes" etc. In genetics as in other controversial fields, precise terminology is very important.
Agree and sieg heil.
Goths come from Romania, that's why Jordanes uses Dani (Danes) and Daci as synonyms, although there is a distinction. Also, he's half Goth, so why would he make this glaring "mistake"?
Getii, their cousin tribe, also come from Thrace.
Rollo, founder of Normandy is called a "Dacian".
Nope, that was one of their trading colonies. Also, when the Wends Voyaged together with the Danes, Danes called them "Vandalorum", further confirming this fact.
They were clearly linked together as I have showcased, a German city carrying a Venetic name. They migrated, simple as.
Proto-Slavic, since their direct ancestors, the Wends, managed to survive in Slavic lands alone.
So what's the big meaning of "Germanic"? And why do you insist on using it then?
They weren't Italic, they had a clear "Illyric" influence coming from the Heneti of the Balkans - Rome sent a delegate asking them to join and they did.
It's true. It's why Slavs have Iranic genes.
Great map, highly recommended. Now of course the question of questions - of what nature and based on what causes was the instantiation (and I use that word very carefully - "creation", "development", "genesis" and "spontaneous mutation" are all problematic terms for various methodological and philosophical reasons) of the R1a/1a group AKA the Aryans?
Uh, maybe because people living up North have had to deal with shitskins less? When you're trying to hold your ground, you invest in military gear, training, the art of war etc.
At this point im willing to believe whites either come from mars or are an alien experiment.
Good question. I woulnd't know though tbh.
The Fae have existed before time inself.
I don't actually know what our origin is though.
You have made many claims here and I will look into them in depth. However, I am skeptical.
Almost every historian believes that the Goths originated from the Gotland area and migrated into Poland around the second century AD. In fact, a Goth living in Byzantium wrote an epic detailing his people's migration from an "island" that sounds suspiciously similar to Scandinavia.
Which sounds like Vandals to me. Though it could also stem from the word "Wends" or "Wendals" not Venetti.
As for the Wends settling Amorica and being a Slavic tribe in the midst of a Celtic area, I see no good evidence for this. I have seen many Celtic coins including the Veneti and their art is indistinguishable from other Celtic art.
I did not, nor do I call all Europeans Germanic.
ALL OF EUROPE IS CELTIC
All Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, Balkic, Hispanic, and Italic people were once various Celtic tribes. Only those today called "Celtic" retained their culture, the rest traded their culture for religion much earlier. Even the modern Celtic people are barely Celtic and identify as "Catholic", which really means "jew". I can't even go to my homeland. They will jail me for thought crimes.
It's based on languages, which evolved over time but often share the same root.
pic is based on very old info, before the revolution of the last 4-5 years
R1a almost certainly originated in north Eurasia, as well as R1b
That claim comes from Jordanes himself, saying he says he "believes" so. But then goes on to say that Getae come from the Getii, contradicting himself as the latter is older - yet it makes sense since where would Thracic like architecture originate from Scandinavia? Moreoever, no other historian shows the Goths in Scandinavia before him.
There was a Romanian user on here ages ago, posting how be believes Odin might come from Dacian mythology. I wished I saved that post (and if you're reading this post it nignog)
That's my point. Vandals are Veneti + Goths.
I should've clarified before, but Celts are a culture, not an ethnicity. That's how some French can be both Celtic and Gaulish. That's how there were Celts in Germany.
They weren't Wends yet, they were simply the Veneti, and it's proto-Slavic if anything, we don't have a word like "Germanic", but we do know that they were connected with the one in Poland as they both sold Baltic amber - the route itsself almost overlapping with Venetic settlements like the Vindelici.
Also, they were the only "Celtic" ones there, as they had Celtic cultural influences, the rest were Gaulish, as in, French. Celtic Veneti is also a synonym of Armorican Veneti, implying that them being Celtic is unique enough in comparison to all other variants to warrant a distinction. Which isn't at all that surprising, they traded for Cornish copper in Albion and when Ceasar took away their home they later migrated there.
And only lower Armorica (Vannetais) was Venetic. They founded a city called Darioritum, but after the Romans conquered it from the Veneti they renamed it to Vannes in pity.
Oldest =/= origin, a Russian genolog actually tried to identify the Veneti with R1a, which would mean, chronologically speaking, that the only mistake there is that the red area doesn't encompass Paphlagonia, as Livy states that the Veneti come from the Eneti of Anatolia. If the oldest R1a subclade is found in Eurasia, the Semenov & Bulat migration route might be the one that they possibly undertook, if the theory that R1a = Veneti is correct.
Principal Component Analysis chart for autosomal DNA
Europe is located in the top right corner. Meds are in green (under orange), Germanics are in purple, Russia is in red. Note the tight clustering compared to every other group.
when you look at the methods used, actually sequencing an old sample and finding an haplogroup is always better than guessing based on secondary info like haplogroup diversity or frequency, which is usually what they did the most back when sequencing ancient DNA samples was very hard and/or unfeasible
P1->R->R1->R1a/b, and you have P1 in ~30k BC northeast SIberia, R in 24k east Siberia, R1b in ~15k BC Italy and R1a in ~10k BC east Europe, all of them among groups of foragers with little to do with the kind of people known to be living in the near east at those time
all these lineages originated tens of thousands of years before you had any group like "Veneti", unless, and you have to be specific, you are referring to deeper subclades of R1a
Darioritum sounds like a Celtic name to me.
Not Slavic (or proto-slavic)
Citation needed, the post
Oh yes sorry I'm retarded the map technically isn't wrong in that instance because it mirrors the Z92 migration*
Let's have a look at a different Venetic city, Opitergium
>etymologically, "-terg-" in Opitergium stems from a Venetic root word indicating a market
Any proof regarding your claim?
this is why the English are the superior race, le German supremacy is a meme
Thats not what the average anglo looks like, they have pointy noses, red cheeks, crooked teeth
Germanic peoples are more individualistic than more southern people. Hence when systemic corruption occurs it is mostly relegated to high level stuff, not the low level bribery and nepotism you see in PIGS and slavs.
No, their building technology was transferred from the romans/italians.
The secret of cement was not lost.
Which etymology do you propose then for the term "Celtic"?
True, but perhaps here applies a kind of paradox of hypernormality. Smoothing away the edges, so to speak, comparable to key frames in game animation. Those faces are almost platonic.
You're forgetting many slavs explored Siberia, Arctic, the new world and space.
The tallest mountain in Australia was named after a Polack. (Mt Kościuszko, explored by Paweł Strzelecki.)
A lot more Jews live in Germany than the Mediterranean, its been that way for a long time
Kościuszko became a freemason while he was in France when he went there to study architecture. That's when he got roped into the American Revolutionary war. Also, it's spelled Polak, not Polack.
More feminine? The 'fat-face' of the German here comes from Slavic admixture due to the Russian rape-babies. If you look at people from Scandinavia and Normandy they have more 'gaunt' features like the 'English' do.
Whilst true, the 'square jaw' is not a German thing, but an Irish one. The very rounded 'weak' jaw is actually a 'Celt' feature; you can see a marked difference in people from Wales, Cornwall and Brittany compared to people from Kent or Sussex.
This sort of 'underman' exists everywhere. Have you not seen those pictures of 'neo-nazis'? I do agree they are horrific though. Not sure if its down to diet, genes or what; but they in my experience they tend to be as vile on the inside as they are on the out.
When are we finally going to accept the ultimate pill, the nord pill?
Take the Nord pill anons.
But about 60 % of anglos ive metlook like that. Anglos are quite the ugly people with very disproportionately shaped facial features
Czy jesteś Polakiem?
Laughable. It's the century-old intermingling of Germans, Poles and other Slavs, not a negligible historic episode (however painful individually) at the end of WW2. FYI, brutal rapes happened, but "only" in the immediate timefram eof Sowiet occupation. Already in fall '45, the Russians punished rapists severely, including capital punishment.
Not completely untrue, but let's better and more precisely speak of mixing of peoples and ethnics. As Herodotus said, e.g. many Persians were white. Sometimes even more than white, full-blown Aryans.
Yeah these. Anyone who blames that on "Slavic admixture" from Russian WW2 rape has not seen how Russians looks like.
That's just retarded version of things, you have mongrels UC indians running companies, not saying they are fighting with the International Judea, but just pointing out the fact that we haven't lost the power of Aptitude, and how can you assume that no one here is Redpilled about the situation? Just like your leaders we are facing the same problem here, our IT companies motto is to be global and shieet, in this war how can one be superhuman like Hitler to commence his message over continents, non White soldiers were defending during the fall of Berlin, you fought wars we had a share in Right side, and you judge us without any sheer evidence that we are against the global order?
Don't worry rabbi, you'll meet your master soon enough.
Right, it's all about policy. We must be genetically identical then, right, and thus what our people accomplished your slant-eyed people must be able to accomplish. Right? Nope!
When did Herodotus say that??? I read the chapter about the foundation of Persia but did not see anything like that?
Carpet bombing in world war 2 took out verminously breeding arrogant working class populations that whined about scapegoat populations.
Germans are richer because Germans are superior
A thread died for this crap.
If speaking about a language family, which would be a branch of Proto-Indo-European, then you are talking about culture and not race.
If you are talking about genetics, then you are speaking about race and the story gets much more complicated IMO. R1b cannot have been spread by the Indo-European ANE Yamnaha or similar tribes.
Ever heard of Mal'ta boy?
Hey there rabbi, still claiming all 6 million societies that hated you were just scapegoating?
It is also a German thing. And an Eastern European thing as well.
There was no continuation from the Roman Empire and the HRE. Yes they had cement, but then so did the Franks and of course the real continuation of the Roman Empire; the Byzantine Empire.
I mean, yeah there was kind'a technological contimuation but not in any way that makes the HRE the successor state to the Roman Empire.
You're thinking of Porky the Capitalist.
Isn't it funny how the left went out of their way to exaggerate the non-Jewishness of their one and only meme? Excessive philtrum, literally no nose at all.
Oh hell no. Hold my tea.
German success is proven to have much to do with geography and resources. Second to this is that in general Europe got really good at self improving around the 1500s, and Germany was (Geographically) at the heart of this.
All this led to Germans punching way above their weight.
Imagine being a med country, however
You said it - no nose, anglos have point noses with red at the top and red cheeks as well (celtic feature), as well as crooked weirdly shaped teeth
Swindling the entire world is not greatness
Then Empires are inherently not great
Slavs where great before the jews and turcic tribes killed the intelligentsia in the bolsjevik revolution, and under Soviet rule.
How ever, they did not stop with the intelligentsia, they wanted to kill all blonds, the Holodomor was targeting aryan farmers, and in Estonia they planned to send all blond men to the gulag, and leave the women with their mongrel troops.
The jews really did a number on the slavs, and in doing so doomed them self.