Are Celts and Germanics A Fiction?

Celts worshiped earth/mother gods
Germanics worshiped sky/father gods

Really antithetical peoples.

Celts saw the sky as a firmament, a crystalline roof of a huge cave.
Germanics saw it as infinite space

Both had a fundamentally different world view

All Europe clusters closely together on genetic PCAs, because all Europeans DNA is a combination of three genetic stocks (WHG/ANE, Anatolian ENF, and PIE).

Celts and Germanics are cultural groups, not genetic groups.

They are genetically distinct. You can tell if somebody is celtic or germanic by their dna.
Thats how we found out that Icelanders have maternal celtic ancestry and paternal norse-germanic ancestry: Vikings raided celtic coasts and took the girls and then moved up north where they settled iceland.

I sure hope this is 100% trolling.

Less than 3k years ago, Southern Yamna Migrated West as Bell Beakers. Thats pretty much all of Western Europe culturally and most of it genetically right now because they kicked the shit out of the Neolithic civilizations there and replaced them. Various cultures started as genetic but then the successful ones kept assimilating and by late antiquity it was already pretty mixed.

Majority of all your ancestors lived off the Northern coast of Ukraine 3k y ago.

...

OP is not only gay but retarded

Then do this and shut the fuck up. You're asking questions which have been answered for years. Read Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul. Read "The Druids" by Peter Berresford Ellis. Much of what people know of the Celts was by historical linguistic research: commonalities in place names, names of Gods etc. To answer your retarded question, yes Celts and Germanics were distinct culturally. Celts in Britain were like Celts in Gaul, speaking different dialects of the same language (could understand each other) and different sects of the same belief system. Germans in Norway had commonalities with Germans in the Alps. Celts in Switzerland had commonalities with Celts in Iberia. Just because they had separate tribes doesn't mean they were entirely different nations in the way retarded OP is thinking about things. Both Celts and Germanics are Indo-European, meaning their language and culture has a common ancestor. But they are distinct the same way English speakers and French speakers are today. Fuck you for making me explain this.

The Celtic tongues have a much closer affinity with the Italic than the German language families. It is generally accepted by linguists that Celtic and Italic share separate proto-language or that they spent a considerable length of time sharing a sprachbund. I (not a linguist, but an amateur with >15 years of study) lean towards the former, considering the 'depth' of the grammatical similarities:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic
Proto-Germanic was wildly different from either Celtic or Italic, even without getting into 'fringe' theories about pre-IE substrates. Although clearly genetically related, there are massive differences in grammar and phonology that are (very) difficult to explain without there being thousands of years separating PG and PIC.
Note the existence of the Belgae (origin of the word 'Belgium'). The Romans talked about them extensively as a group of heavily Germanised Celts living to the West of the Rhine.
Caesar clearly states that the maritime tribes of (South East) England had a closer affinity to the Belgae than to the Celts, while the inland tribes were more Celtic.
A possible redpill is that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain never happened - they'd already been there for centuries, but it was politically convenient - then as now - to claim a recent invasion as having taken place.

nice dubs, check my quads:

Not really. Some of the most important celtic gods were astral, for example, Taranis and Lug. Germans also had their fair share of important earth associated God’s, such as Yngvi-frey and Odin.
The association of celts with treehuggers and this kind of thing derives mostly of wiccans who appropriated of the Celtic historiography to push their new age beliefs.

I thought the deal with the belgae is that they were a Celtic-looking people who adopted German language, and not that they looked like other Germans to begin with.

Is that the Scythians?

No, scythians are pretty much historically irrelevant to Europeans

I believe Celts will likely be the European race with the highest Western Hunter Gatherer genetic affinity with one of the lowest Indo-Aryan genetic affinity.

All White races are a mix of the two, but genetics studies will confirm my theory of the Celts being essentially "natives" of Europe. They literally are the niggers or root race of Europe.

I've also been doing considerable research on Whiteness itself and where it could have come about from. Either a mutation that was selectively bred in Europe from African migratory lineages, or these early Hunnter Gatherers actually evolved as a separate White people from the other parts of the world.

I am certain that Whiteness is also exclusive to the Euro HG gene. I believe the Indo-Aryans were likely sandy at best. This would mean thay vikings already had HG genes with a mix of Aryan before they came and met the Celts.

I'm trying to read up on European history but I'm more interested in European genetic history. Do you have any god sources on the topic? You seem to have knowledge on the subject. And what you mean bt "whiteness" is more a character trait than just a pigmentation correct? Because there seems to be a kind of presdisposition only found in Europe, particularly the West.

Being conquered does not erase the former line. The base WHG mtDNA will still be there, even if mixed with Scandinavian Y-DNA. That alone will make the west different from the typical Ukrainian. Additionally, I'd imagine over the years, that Y-DNA has been diluted by numerous waves of conquerering tribes.

However, you will likely still have a high possibility of that original proto-Ukrainian mtDNA.

It's unfortunate, but genetics is revealing that the closer people live to the Middle East, the higher tha chances of a mixed genetic legacy that tells the story of the land they are in. This is why coastal and other isolated folks are the best choices for analyzing ancient DNA.

Incorrect. “Celts” do have a higher % pre-european blood in them, but even at its highest, in Sardinia and Corsica, it’s under 10%. Celts are basically the first of the “aryans” to have arrived in Europe, about 1000-2000 years before “germanics”.

Nope.
Baltic people have most WHG-related admixture, because unlike other Europeans, the pre-Indo-European people living in Baltics were HGs.
Pre-Indo-European people of Scotland, Ireland and Britain were all farmers, genetically very similar farmers to the ones in Iberia/Ukraine/Poland/Germany/Scandinavia.
But EEF could be also 70% WHG and 30% basal (hypothetical population which we do not have proofs for) and EHGs were somewhere 20-40% WHG, while the rest was CHG and ANE, so in that case, people with most WHG ancestry would be Basques.

Well, it is most likely that Celts became Celtic already in Europe, labels such as Germanic/Celtic should not be applied for ancient populations

Very true, that’s why I use the quotations on th terms. However, there is a general genetic similarity between most peoples of the Celtic culture, so it is a more didactic way of explaining this.

IUf you mean Indo-EUROPEAN then they literally have like 80% r1b+r1a paternal haplogroups.

Why the fuck would Indo-Aryans be relevant here? Are you a moron or a troll?

They are Bell Beakers. Anglos are overhwlemingly Celt-majority and differ fuck all from Germans. Western European Farmers had more WHG DNA

"Whiteness". Talking like a Marxist Jew.

Collin Flaherty is my hero.

What Scandinavian DNA? Were talking migration TO Scandinavia, among other places.

I'm pretty sure mtDNA is not at all significant outside of Iberia. Prove me wrong.

Hardly. Main difference is genetic drift. Also why Ukrainian??? You actually think Ukrainians are from Ukraine 3k years ago? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Yeah, you'd imagine. Instead of looking on a map.

Indo-Europeans were also the subsequent waves of conquering tribes

I'd love to see an article or study if you could back that up as it seems by your certainty that it has been proven beyond a doubt. I was under the impression that conclusions could not yet be drawn because of insufficient data, and was making an educated guess based on location and culture.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that farming was present in Europe before 8-6k BC. My understanding of the peopling of the world is that

70kya humans migrated OOA by two paths
Focusing on the Northern Path, some stayed in the fertile cresent (Southern Path goes through Horn of Africa to India)
And others kept spreading probably becoming the first European Proto-HGs
Here, a long long time passes and the ice age thaws out around 15kya
Around 8kya, Anatolian Farmers move northwards and westward into Europe bringing agriculture and oral tradition.
Same happens with Iranian Farmers on the East moving towards India.

I believe this is the beginning of Ancient Greek culture as well as the Indus Valley Civ. I also believe moat of the rest of the world was still hunting. This is because thw ibtroduction of farming frequently coincides with the ibtroduction of domesticated wheat, rye and barley which is native to the fertile crescent.

Important to note, there was a 2018 study on Indians that showed the introduction of new mtDNA into India at this time along with new YDNA. It is my belief that this means that the farmers integrated with these hunters, rather than conquering them.

This agricultural tradition continues spreading further westwards, and mixes with the original HG lines of Europe. A little before or after the Bronze Age Collapse, PIE enters the game through war and conquest. I assume conquest because the earlier cited study seems to indicate the introduction of mostly male YDNA with no new female mtDNA.

This is for me where I start separating Celts. The Celts will have WHG and Iranian Farmer, but much less PIE than the rest of Europe, unless my friend above can show me genetic studies between celts and other western euro people that shows closer genetic affinity than I am assuming (I have no study to back this claim and I am insinuating based on studies of other populations).

Calm the fuck down, your autism is showing. We are having a conversation, relax. I am not denying you.

If you want me to distinguish between classic terminology and modern terminology, I can, but your tone has turned me off so I won't.

You're upset about my claim that PIE are not white and only native Europeans are? Who's the kike?

First of all, I meant proto-Ukrainian, which is an example you yourself gave. So your first point is moot. Secondly, human beings generally, in conversation, will attempt to use common language in order to find middle ground. Hence my usage of your terms.

And mtDNA is not relevent outside of Iberia? What?

Your second point gives no argument (Hardly.) and furthers the argument on semantics and word definition. Now where have I seen this type of arguing before? hmmmm…

You're right about Indo-Aryans (kek) being the waves of future conquest and by saying this you have essentially shown that middle europe is higher in indo aryan YDNA than the Isles out West.

Anyway, why are we arguing if you're not a kikelberg? Has 8ch gone down in intelligence or are we just unable to have serious threads anymore?

Fuck you you piece of shit. You care so little about this topic that you can't even be bothered to do the bare minimum of research on it. This thread is just a giant shitpost you dumped on this board because you're too lazy to do anything on your own. You dumb nigger.
It's really that simple. They're distinct and different peoples.
It would take all of an hour to go through and compare the two language groups and come to the conclusion that they're different language groups entirely.
Another thing you can do is actually do some research on the cultural practices of the different groups and come to the obvious conclusion that they were different. Very different.

The same? No. Though southern Britain was culturally contiguous with Belgae. However they were Celtic. Like how Americans used to be Anglo-Saxons but not the exact same as the British.

They would be very related, thus the differences would be harder to spot, but genetically you can sort them out if you take certain groups as representative, due to their history i.e Welsh and Swedes, or better Bretons and Swedes. These groups differ not only in unipaternal lineages, but also autosomally. Essentially, the major difference is that Germans probably have slightly higher hunter gatherer ancestry and less anatolian farmer ancestry.
Celts like Italics probably originated within Bell Beaker cultures of central Europe. Germanics I think have a higher relation with the Corded ware horizon and so, in a way, kinda forma bridge between Celts and Balto-Slavs.

Celts are more purely Aryan than Germanics, which is confirmed by the predominance of paternal R1b lineages among Celtic populations (whereas the Germanic core of Scandinavia has many pre-Aryan I1 lineages) as well has having some of the highest steppe-like DNA.

This of course is not only genetically the case, but also in terms of cultural, religious, and social institutions. The Celts retained archaic Indo-European traditions that often find their closest equivalents in Vedic India.

That said both are largely descendants of steppe Bell Beakers/ proto-Northwest-Indo-Europeans and lived in close proximity to each other for centuries and hence are quite closely connected.

Of course we know that while Celtic and Germanic can describe cultures and languages, we also know that simply speaking a Germanic language or adhering to Germanic culture doesn't make one Germanic, i.e. an Anglophone Negro who fancies himself a worshiper of Odin is not a Germanic. Similarly, many so-called Germanic groups today, such as Englishmen, Flemings, Rhinelanders, Swabians, and Swiss are predominately descended from the ancient Celts.

This makes notions of Germanic superiority over Celts a ridiculous notions since one merely need compare the historic accomplishments of more purely Germanic groups such as Frisians, Danes, and Swedes with that of more Celtic groups, such as the British, French, Southern/Western Germans, Northern Italians, etc. and it becomes clear that it is indeed the descendants of the ancient Celts who have been the great race of history despite the retreat of their traditional languages to the fringes of Western Europe.

Attached: celtic_art1.jpg (656x1030 187.79 KB, 173.11K)

Celt and Germanic alliance forever.

Here you absolute morons
Haplogroups do not matter much.
Genetically closest to PIE/Yamnaya - Western Russians and Belarusians. After that Scandinavians and Balts and Celts, but it is not very different in Northern Europe. Also from non-European population - Tajiks and Avars are quite close to PIE

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (381x3000, 77.36K)

Also - light blue - WHG
light green - eef
dark green - ehg-related
brown - CHG
pink - natufian
Upper ones are ancient and below are modern
look these things through
nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1
reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature24476_final_1.pdf
reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature25738_Olalde_2.pdf
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1
These should give basic descriptions.

Haplogroups both do and don't matter much. Basques are predominately R1b yet non-Indo-European and not very close to PIE genetically and in such a case their haplogroups don't matter.

Yet when discussing the groups closest to PIE, such as Norwegians, certain Russians, and Scots/Irish, one should take into consideration paternal lineage as well, especially since Indo-European cultures were notoriously patriarchal and social identity was derived from ones paternal lineage. As such it is the British Celts, the Gaels in particular, who are most predominately R1b of those groups, which appears to have been by the predominate haplogroup among Yamnaya samples so far.

Of course I also mentioned social, cultural, and religious traditions. While all Indo-European groups inherited these traditions, the Celts in particular seem to have been especially conservative and retained more Aryan traditions than other groups. See:

centrostudilaruna.it/europeanceltsvedichindus.html

academia.edu/13113385/Druidism_and_Vedism_Compared

books.google.com/books/about/Celts_and_Aryans.html?id=kUZiAAAAMAAJ

Attached: 3.png (1714x806, 2.74M)

German/Germany name comes from Roman general germanicus

please stop posting

people move.
The egyptian pharoahs were irish before the irish were.

There's obvious connection between the Celtic regions today, as far as Hungaria there are Celtic traits in sub-populations of Celts.

And Germany wouldn't be Germanic, wut?

Attached: bait.png (786x960 352.92 KB, 101.64K)

german (adj.)
"of the same parents or grandparents," c. 1300, from Old French germain "own, full; born of the same mother and father; closely related" (12c.), from Latin germanus "full, own (of brothers and sisters); one's own brother; genuine, real, actual, true," related to germen (genitive germinis) "sprout, bud," of uncertain origin; perhaps a dissimilation of PIE *gen(e)-men-, suffixed form of root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

German (n.)

"a native of Germany," 1520s, from Latin Germanus (adjective and noun, plural Germani), first attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in northeastern Gaul, of unknown origin and considered to be neither Latin nor Germanic. Perhaps originally the name of an individual tribe, but Gaulish (Celtic) origins have been proposed, from words perhaps originally meaning "noisy" (compare Old Irish garim "to shout") or "neighbor" (compare Old Irish gair "neighbor"). Middle English had Germayns (plural, late 14c.), but only in the sense "ancient Teuton, member of the Germanic tribes." The earlier English word was Almain (early 14c., via French; see Alemanni) or Dutch. Shakespeare and Marlowe have Almain for "German; a German."

Þe empere passede from þe Grees to þe Frenschemen and to þe Germans, þat beeþ Almayns. [John of Trevisa, translation of Higdon's "Polychronicon," 1387]
Their name for themselves, die Deutschen (see Dutch), dates from 12c. Roman writers also used Teutoni as a German tribal name, and writers in Latin after about 875 commonly refer to the German language as teutonicus (see Teutonic). Meaning "the German language" in English is from 1748. High German (1823 in English) and Low German as a division of dialects is geographical: High German (from 16c. established as the literary language) was the German spoken in the upland regions in southern Germany, Low German (often including Dutch, Frisian, Flemish), also called Plattdeutsch was spoken in the regions near the North Sea. In the U.S. German also was used of descendants of settlers from Germany.

Though it is first attested by Caesar, the Fasti Triumphales record a victory in 222BC by two blokes, M. Claudius and M.n Marcellus, over the insubri(Celts) and "Germani".

Attached: CIL I(2) 1, p. 47 (XX,XXI).jpg (3456x5639, 7.92M)

My my another UNPOLITICAL post

Gay and become an hero

humanphenotypes is pretty bullshit.
You should read this
theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202075-Racial-classification-within-the-White-Family-a-list-of-non-existant-phenotypes
Below is a short list of non-existant European phenotypes, with no basis in reality, which are both products of anthrotard internet “experts” and real “anthropologists”.

Totally non-existant phenotypes:

1. East Mediterranid
No anthropologist ever used this type. People that get classified as so usually have absolutely no metrical difference from Gracile/Atlanto-Mediterraneans.
2. West Baltid/(”common”) Baltid/”east” (“mongoloid” Baltid)/Kurganoid/etc.
All of these types don’t exist. There is only one type, named Baltic by some anthropologists, and East Baltic by Coon (because it’s found on eastern shores of Baltic sea). It is type derived from basal Ladogan type, heavily mixed with Corded, Hallstatt, and western UP. Any of these types can become more express in this mixture, for this type is not a stable blend, but a very variable one. Comment from TRoE photographic plate:
Fig. 5 (3 views). A Finn from Tampere, Tavastehus. This man seems to show more evidence of Nordic influence than the others. As these pictures show, the East Baltic is not a stable or a basic racial type, but a variable blend. (C.S. Coon, “The Races of Europe”, photographic supplement)

Phenotypes which have been described but have no basis in reality:

3. Faelid
A type invented by Gunther, a politically-motivated creation just like rest of his phenotypes. He glorified Nordic race as a part of Nazi ideology, but as the time went by, it was discovered that Germany’s greatest figures (like Leibniz, Kant and Schopenhauer) were all brachycephalic. So he conveniently created “Faelisch” type, which consisted of individuals that would be classified by Coon and others as Borreby, East Baltic, Brunn and Alpine, and he defined it as a sub-type of Nordid race.
This is what imaginary “Faelid” was supposed to look like:
If you learned anthropology from internet forums, rather than from books, then these examples will be a huge surprise for you…
4. Strandid
A type designed by Lundman (and used by no one other than himself) as a “Scandinavian variant of Alpine”. Needless to say, there is not a single trait which separates them from Alpines elsewhere, making this type wrong in its root.
5. Berid
CM-Mediterranean-Alpine mixture. Clearly not a type of its own.
6. Paleo-Atlantid/Tydal
Supposed pigmented, unreduced, dolichocephalic Upper Palaeolithic survivor of northwestern parts of Europe. Not only does this type appear extremely rarely, but Lundman’s own examples contradict his description of this type. As is the case with rest of his types described here, they were used by no one other than himself. His pictorial example of the type (you don’t get any FURTHER from unreduced CM than many of people on photo):
7. Gorid
Supposed eastern European version of Alpine. As is the case with Strandid, there is nothing which separates it from regular Alpine.

Blatantly fake types which need no further explanation:

8. Baskid
9. Mtebid/Caucasid
10. Aisto Nordid/East Nordid
11. Paleo-Pontid/Pre-Slavic

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1500x2181, 1.96M)

The "sex" chromosome, which dictates Ydna Haplogroups, is the header of each string of your dna and is very important. Xdna "randomly" recombines every generation and is not accurate sample of lineage like Ydna so you measure MTdna, the mitochondria that function like a cpu for every cell, for women. This "other" dna that "haplogroups don't matter man" fags shill also recombines every generation and is not accurate sample of lineage, although proximity maps can be created with this info but these are shit if you have been paying attention over the past few years.

Because of the recombination, somebody can be more of one lineage than the maths of halfing would result in on paper, so a piechart of you isn't as accurate to your historical lineage as it is to your present recombined form. A Scandanavian and Iberian can make new Irish, as a Scandanavian and an Italic can make new Swiss German. On a proximity map, these new people will map with the groups they are close to more than the groups their parents are; i.e., they will genetically look like Irish and Swiss instead of Nordics and Sudics.

Both are the ame as the taxonomic system for animals, in that they are incomplete obervations that are a piece of the pie provided by genetics and blood. You can classify phenotypes and get close but it is not "science" everybody can agree with but more of an art that is a bit subjective with an underlining current of truth.

Phoenicians went up in there and made pict rape-babies long ago.

Attached: onerace.png (889x613, 664.29K)

Lel.
By the way jews characterize Norse migrations into continental Celtae as "invasions", while Muslim invasions are characterized as "conquests", I take your statement as confirmation that you are jew.

I seem to recollect that it derives from Spengler.

What is that supposed to mean?

yes

You're retarded not me

Do you not understand the purpose of posting a thread is to learn? I mentioned I didn't analyze the languages before to request those who have analyzed the languages to comment on it. You're the piece of shit, not me.

You should become an hero

The Prussians got around.

The Romans looked at Northern Europeans the same way that Westward Ho'ing Americans looked at Plains Indians. They settled for calling anybody on one side of a line Gaelic and everybody over there Germanic, and never mind that the damn groups migrated.

Here a "German" King called Ariovistus is in Gaul and speaks Gaulish.

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Gallic_War/1B*.html

"Caesar selected him because of his fidelity and his knowledge of the Gallic tongue", thats a sentence talking about a guy Caesar selected to talk with the Germans.

The lines are blurry between Celt and German in Gaul. Sort of like how people from California might move into Oregon or vice a versa. This idea of an ethnic Celt or ethnic German in continental Europe is ludicrous. Perhaps an argument can be made that Irish people are Celts, but what about the Norse migrations into Ireland? Migrations that likely happened prior to the viking age in addition to viking age migrations.

Words like Celt and German or Latin to describe West Europeans can refer to culture, and maybe in select cases to genetics, but the way things have been evolving is Europeans are evolving into a genetically European ethnic group. The task for Europeans to decide what culture they wish to affiliate with.

Attached: God Curse.jpg (270x406, 12.7K)

Its the same with the Magyars being considered different from "Germanic" Tribes. Its all a matter of the conversion date and what was lost by one group but upheld by another.

Attached: nephagyomany.mp4 (480x360, 14.35M)

Lol phoenocians are fucking semites not Aryans. Literal desert nigger jews

this is plain wrong

Phonetians were not Semites. They used a variation of Sanskrit, that the Jews in the 1800's adopted to use with Yiddish and called it Yiddish and recently started calling Hebrew.

They have no relation to the original Hebrews.

nope

also, not a single person cares what faggots think.

you are showed emotions by reacting to me.

Had to get a German that could speak Gallic, Germans are somehow Celts.

Africans can speak English, Africans are now English.

These posts, they suck.

you were sexually assaulted by faggots, you've never willingly done anythin g willingly with men.. you'renot a man or straight now.

I have figured it out, you're all retarded.

Well remember that lug sailed to scotia atop a mountain (flood myth tends to have this symbol as well). Tarranis is also Roman sourced, he seems to be an aspect of lug or ogmios, or from a minor cult. Remember that when the tuatha dé danann are driven from scotia by the milesians, they go underground, to the otherworld.

I dunno about seeing the sky as a ceiling, but our Gaelic ancestors seem to think we lie in a middle world, not the bottom.

middle world means you're not dead and you're not an ascended spirit.

Whats your perception then of the fairies living below us in a land of plenty, but which is unpleasant for us?
Death is great for the ascended, but awful for the rest?

Fae folkare tricksters In Odinism they are followers of Loki. Loki doesn't exist in Wotanism or Ohrism, or even Tyrellian lore.

They only exist in Viking lore, and are used to explain how sometimes things unexpectantly simply go wrong.

I avoid death. Justlike I avoid trolls and Jews.

German means neighbor.

Me think german and celts share a common ancestry, like slavs.

But the celts were blessed with the bountiful field of western Europe while the germans/nordic have to scavenge to live in snowy Scandinavia or the black forest in Germany, thus the germans were more ferocious and war-like.

That word doesn't exist outside of English and Latin languages.

Indeed, german/germania is a roman term.

The "germans" were of different tribes and called themselves with different names.

Also, Germany is mountains. Literally the entire region is moutanuous.

quit being gay pigs.

That's not fucking true.

The area near the Alps sure, but the Rhineland area, or northern Saxony/Hamburg?

Yes, which is why I don't call myself German unless it's to a nonGermanic. Otherwise I am Hapsburg Saxe.

That's not funny Prince Hall.

Northern Saxony? No such state. Lower Saxony, because it's a lower elevation than where the Saxon tribe came from.

The Rhineland was inhabitated until nearly the 4th century AD. Hamburg is right between a pair of mountain ranges. Literally, check it's elevation.

Should have said Westphalia then, the ancient area of the Saxon.

Still doesn't stop it from one of the central German era.

That would be Saxony. It's called Saxony.

It's a central area afte the 4th century. When the Romans were around they would raid the area and go hunt there, but they never stayed.

The ancient Germans were mountain folk.

And that's where I disagree.

The ancient germans were forest people, but still they have tribal and a civilization going on.

Archeological evidence says you're wrong.

While I agree that there has been a lot of history erased the evidence says you're wrong.

Point me to them then?

Duly note that the germans I refer to are mainly the tribes that Caesar and the romans fought. Maybe the ancestors of those people were mountaineers.

Scroll up. Read the entire thread. The Romans never fought the Northern Germans. They got stomped by who we call the Austrians and Swiss now. The Saxons didn't lose against anybody until they were being raided by both Vikings and Charlamagne, that's not the correct spelling.

But we are talking about the whole of Germany, including Swabia/Sweboz which was a tribe that fought against Rome?

As well as the allemani and the teutons.

Teutons did not fight Rome. The Teutons raided Rome. They raided all the way into Africa. They were the most successful German tribe to ever exist, and that's why they had their own order during the Crusades.

I know nothing about the tribes of that tiny nation south of Austria, sorry.

I think you are confusing the teutons with the vandals.

The teutons were known for the ferocity in battles (that even their women fight with them in the last battle), but they were relatively short live.

The most successful german tribes were the franks and the saxon.

Get out, and read more.

No, I think that's an advice to you.

what do you mean by "northern Germans"? Caesar crushed thousands of forest roaches up in modern Netherlands, archive.is/SqI7T
the Romans for a while had conquered parts of what is now northern Germany in various campaigns before retreating back to the more manageable Rhine border

If by "Teutons" you mean "Teutones", they got nearly genocided by Romans when they migrated south with Cimbri during the Cimbrian wars. Maybe you are thinking of later Teutones.

Posts source didn't even read his own source. Get gassed.

check again. don't click fake websites.

check what? the Cimbrian wars are Roman history 101, and one of Rome biggest scares after the Punic wars, since Cimbrians and Teutones, migrating from northern Germany, caused some serious panic before Marius put an end to their wandering

Attached: Screenshot_2019-05-10 Battle of Aquae Sextiae - Wikipedia.png (314x582, 165.59K)

yeah, before they went their seperate ways the Germans routed a major Eoman force, the Cimbrians got crushed. The Teutons were still around.

I am proof of that.