Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stupid phrase

"In Scandinavia there is a long history of assimilation of Finnic peoples, namely Finns and Lapps - such that the many Finns think of themselves as a Nordic People."

That is an extremely stupid phrase... Nordic does NOT equal Germanic. Finns are Nordic, but not Germanic, which renders this phrase useless. Further Lapps are not Finnic, they speak a Finnic language but are geneticaly from another group that pre-dates Indo-Europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.168 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But finns are not indo-european either. Sami people (or "Laps") are genetically related to Finns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.228.18 (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nordic" does not equal "Northern". Sure, Finns live in the north, but "Nordic" is commonly reserved for "North Germanic". Just a matter of terminology. dab (𒁳) 10:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term "Nordic" has a confusing usage in Northern Europe because of politico-linguistic reasons. The Finns are part of the Nordic council, and so Finland counts itself among the "Nordic countries". However, Finland's ticket to being part of the Nordic council was formerly the status of Swedish as an official language and the fact that Finnish politicians were expected to use Swedish in the Nordic council when communicating with Danish-, Swedish- and Norwegian-speaking politicians, just like Icelandic politicians were expected to use Danish, Swedish or Norwegian in the Nordic council to make themselves understood. In 1987, linguistic rights were expanded, but Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are still the working languages in the Nordic council.--Berig (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed misleading wording in the Assimilation section

I have been bold and changed some of the wording in the assimilation section as it was pretty misleading. It should be stated that the Anglo-Saxons assimilated the indigenous culture into their own continental derived culture rather than assimilating their own culture into the culture of the Britons. This is in opposition to France where the Franks assimilated into the indigenous (though latinised and romance speaking) culture, hence the fact the French do not speak a Germanic language and tend to take a 'romance' view of the world. That's not to say that French culture has no influences from the Franks (it does...look at some of it's Folklore, the name of the country and it's people...etc...). Someone shall no doubt disagree, so go ahead. I won't bite! Sigurd Dragon Slayer 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

List of contemporary Germanic peoples

I'd like to formally suggest here that the format of a list of modern Germanic peoples is replaced by a new page in which each group that is currently included on the list can have a paragraph(s) devoted to it. I think that this would help to stop people from constantly fighting over whether any one group should be included or not because the reasons for (and hopefully evidence for) including each group will be spelled out clearly and people can argue over specific points rather than removing and/or adding groups according to their knowledge/interpretation of history/race/culture/etc. Please read the comments in the 'request' section below before adding comments here.--Hraefen 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The English and the Scots are not Germanic peoples any more than the Welsh would be (who are classified as an ethnic group and also natively speak English). The English language is a Germanic language but the English and Scots are British peoples. To label them as Germanic transposes a linguistic reference to an ethnic one and this is incorrect. Enzedbrit 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What weird kind of comparison are you making here?? The English and the Scottish aren't Germanic - despite speaking a Germanic language and having a Germanic culture - because they can't prove 100% genetic descent from a mythological pure Germanic race? Yet you're quite happy to label them as "British peoples" without even elaborating on what that vague term is supposed to mean? None of the cultures present in the British isles originated there, and none of the people residing in the British isles are purely descended from pre-invasion natives. To reject to calling people Germanic unless they can prove uninterrupted Germanic decent, also means to reject calling people Celtic unless they can do the same, as it does even with the term British.Jamopy 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the Irish who are regarded (also on wikipedia) as a seperate ethnicity. The above mentioned list might be a good idea. Bikerams 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners

Shouldn't Afrikaners be on the list of Germanic peoples? Gringo300 12:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

think the hoaky list of tribal ancestors ought to just go away. If you click on Angul, for example, you get a disambiguation page leading back to Germanic peoples. Someone seems to be getting rid of the awful red links by linking them to anywhere. Then they have a nice blue color and it looks much better. Bad idea. Anyway, there isn't really much to say about a tribal ancestor, as the only thing you might know about him is his name, which is his raison d'etre. When in doubt, throw it out.

For ancient culture of course there is no one better

I went ahead and added them and several others myself. Gringo300 01:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very odd to me! Although Afrikaners certainly descend from people who have germanic (as well as non-germanic) ancestors it appears to me that the term germanic belongs to a totally different time, much farther in the past than the term Afrikaner. Don't know if it is possible to give a time frame for what you can call germanic and what not (would be nice to get a scientific explanation), but somehow Afrikaner feels like the answer to "one of the words doesn't fit to the others." Could Belgian be an analogy to describe why Afrikaner are not germanic? karvajalka 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not intimately familiar with the degree to which the "Dutch" commingled genetically with anyone, but they certainly qualified as Germanic before heading down there.--Hraefen 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Austrians

To the anonymous editor using the IP addresses 195.34.133.61, 195.34.133.68 and 195.34.133.69:

• Removing Austrians altogether borders on vandalism.
• Why did you insist on describing Austrians as "Austrian Germans" in previous edits? If you are Austrian, you should be aware that this designation is totally a minority position in Austria which can normally be found only on the right fringes of the Freedom Party of Austria and within right-wing extremist Studentenverbindungen. You should also be aware that most Austrians today strongly resent being called German.
• However, we know that this was not always historically the case. This is why I added the clarifying sentence in brackets in response to your first edit here. I was attempting to explain both the current and the past view on the "nationality"/"ethnicity"/whatever of Austrians.
• Personally, I do not think that ethnicity or nationality is a category that makes much sense. "Germanic languages" makes sense, but "Germanic peoples" does not, given all the mixing between neighbouring peoples that naturally occurred in the course of history, which makes categorizing people on grounds of ancestry complete hogwash. Martg76 08:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, the ENTIRE concept of race doesn't make sense. Gringo300 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See validity of human races. The arguments listed on that page in favor of the concept of "race" certainly don't apply to Germanic, Slavic peoples etc. who were never genetically separated from each other. Martg76 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Scotland

I altered the section dealing with the culture of Scotland to reflect that the split culture referred to was a historical rather than contemporary fact due to the continuous regression of the Celtic language (Scottish Gaelic) to its current status of strength only in the Western Isles. Also inserted reference to the displacement of the Scandinavian language and culture of the Northern Isles by the language and culture of the Lowland Scots with settlers prominent.

User=anSiarach

interbreeding

The article mentions the interbreeding of Germanic peoples with non-Germanic peoples. The "technical" term for this is miscegenation.

There are DEFINITELY a lot people considered Germans, for example, that aren't pure Germanic.

While there are Germanic people who are opposed to miscegenation between Germanic and non-Germanic peoples, and I'm sure there always have been, there is absolutely NO question that it HAS happened. Gringo300 09:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I would rather say: There is not a single "pure Germanic" person in the world. The purpose of the paragraph is to point out that the concept of "Germanic peoples" is inherently problematic. Martg76 21:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could possible know for sure that there isn't a SINGLE pure Germanic person anywhere on earth.

Ok, let's look at theoretically/hypothetically, or whatever is the proper term:

How could anybody possibly POSITIVELY determine that any person is absolutely pure anything?

Even if there was, how would anybody ever know it? Gringo300 02:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Noone would ever know because it's impossible, there's no such thing as -the- germanic person. A group can show simular properties (or to be more precise, the individuals may show these), but genes and behaviour vary from person to person, it can produce funky statistics like 2.3 children or can blatantly contradict itself. This is, of course, because a group is an average, a simplification of a complex system, not a single undividable unit with a physical body) And remember, you can drown in a river with an average depth of 6 inches =p. -KraftwerK- June 18th 2005

The pure germanic person has as blue eyes and fair hair as Hitler, and is as tall and slim like Göring.

and the pure Germanic person allegedly has psychic powers, telepathy, etc.

Gringo300 02:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And i think this obvious display of your anti-Germanic bias is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be contributing to an article about Germanic people. Jamopy 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil a neo-nazi party, but ever considered where the contintental Celts went? Right. Pure Germanic people will be pretty rare :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.159.74.100 (talk) 19:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Gotlanders

i personally think Gotlanders should be put back on the list. Gringo300 07:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? They are Swedes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.181 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scots

Why are the Scots not included? The Scots language is a Germanic language , and is spoken by more Scottish people than the Gaelic language. While parts of Scotland do have Celtic heritage , so too do parts of England ( such as Cornwall and Cumbria ).

Even though most Scots speak a Germanic language, they are generally considered a Celtic people. The same can be said of the Irish. john k 14:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Irish language is a celtic language whereas the Scots language is a germanic language. See 'Scots' wikipaedia article. I am Scottish and ethnically I'm of Nordic and Anglian origin and therefore not Celtic. If Scots are 'generally considered a Celtic people'it means that what is 'generally considered' is wrong , and shouldn't be propogated by Wikipaedia.

Most Irish people speak English, although they originally spoke a celtic language. The Scots are somewhat of a mixture, but the term "Scot" is simply another word for Irish, and until the 11th century at least, most of Scotland spoke Gaelic.john k 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC) This is not addressing the fact that the Scots language is a Germanic language. Gaelic has never been spoken by the people in Lothian , Borders or in the Northern Isles.

• This discussion again illustrates that the concept of "Germanic peoples" is fundamentally flawed. All peoples are a mixture of some sort, it's just more obvious in the case of Scots. I'd nominate this page for deletion if I thought that it had any chance of getting deleted. Martg76 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that nomination. Enzedbrit 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'"Scot" is simply another word for Irish' is simply not true , this is an arcaic use of the word. Scot usually refers to someone from Scotland . As stated above the Scots language is a Germanic language. Please refer to Scots (Lallans) Wikipedia article.

All Scots originally spoke a Celtic language, as did all Irish, as did all English. Looking at British bloodlines, they are influenced by Germanic peoples but are predominately ancient Briton. The classification of English and Scots as Germanic peoples carries as much weight as listing the Irish and other British isles peoples as Germanic. I have removed British peoples from the 'modern Germanic peoples' section. We speak the language, and are of British blood. Enzedbrit 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

British Isles peoples are mixed of Celtic People (both Romanized and non-Romanized) and Germanic People (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc), which is quite similar to the French (mix of both Romanized and non-Romanized Celtic peoples with Germanic People such as the Franks, Burgundians, etc). So the term Germanic People makes sense only in histoic sense when comparing to the Roman citizens and Slavic People. In modern sense it doesn't convey any true meaning. Karolus 2006/6/22

I don't agree with your take on it but I see your reasoning and there is truth to it. The article in question then is still not correct. I have been accused of not knowing better by adding Frisians. The person who has reverted my changes doesn't know any better by including English and Scottish as Germanic ethnic groups. If they are Germanic speaking ethnic groups, then all British ethnicities must be added. The article needs to be cleaned up or omitted. Enzedbrit 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Enzedbrit, who seemingly bases his claims on Anti-Germanic Bias. England didn't exist before the Anglo-Saxon (AKA Germanic) people invaded (settled...what ever) and set up the petty English Kingdoms...that eventually lead on to the building of a nation separate from the Celtic nations, England (which eventually joined with the Celtic nations down the road of time). The English language did not exist before the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) tribes settled what became England. The folklore was fundamentally different (English Folklore especially in the North East borrows a great deal from continental Germanic Folklore, though it does have British elements. It is predominately Germanic). The days of the week have largely names derived from Germanic Deities. The DNA is at least in part Germanic, the claims of Enzedbrit and the other esteemed Wikipedians in this debate cuts no ice, for two reasons. The first reason being that no Genetic Study has been accepted by the experts in the field. The second being the claim that the majority of DNA is of British origin, is also fundamentally flawed (the method is flawed anyway as it goes of the Y Chromosome inherited from the father making it hard to tell what other genetics the 'subject' actually has. In other words testing the DNA only shows the direct maternal or paternal lineage...so it shows the DNA inherited from one out of a thousand odd ancestors...you see my point), mostly due to the fact that it has been estimated by many that the English have over 50% Y Chromosomes that are the same as the Danish and the Dutch, that is Germanic Y Chromosomes. But you may say that these were later and that they are not Anglo-Saxon but Danish, which is highly pedantic as they are still of Germanic Origin and not Native British. Almost all the tests including the recent studies found by the BBC for 'Blood of The Vikings' showed this (And also caused problems for them as they are not sure whether the Germanic content is from the Danish Settlers or the Anglo-Saxon settlers). Almost every study shows this, the important finding was not that the Germanic content of English DNA is of a lesser extent than the British DNA, but that contrary to what some academics used to think, the British DNA also makes up a larger part of the DNA than was thought at one time, revealing that the Anglo-Saxons did integrate with the British. Not that blood matters as much as culture, traditions and history. Also as I have said the English generally talk of their culture, country or character as being 'Anglo-Saxon' and thus as Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes they consider themselves Germanic! So the English are definitely 'Germanic'.

As for the Scots that is not as clear as the country is almost divided down the middle. The Lowland Scots I would say can be classed as a Germanic people, just as the Cornish a Celtic one. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

OH bloody hell! Sigurd Dragon Slayer, I can't even respond to this crap you've just posted, I'm sorry. I'm laughing, really. Enzedbrit 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points Sigurd Dragon Slayer. It seems some people are trying to apply a purposefully exclusive definition of what Germanic actually means to this article. If we have to know the exact genetic history and bloodline of ever person in every group before we can classify them as a member of that group, then we might as well stop even grouping people. All the arguments raised here can just as equally be layed against people calling themselves Celtic, or Italian, or Nigerian, or Hindi, etc.Jamopy 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jamopy. Genetics is different from ethnicity and is still in it's infancy. As for Enzedbrit, I think he needs to calm down, not personally attack people, respond with well thought out arguments. All I have said can be backed up, and may seem stupid to someone who has a genetic (racial/racist) view of ethnicity. It's ironic, the Germans as a people are less genetically 'Germanic' (there is no actually Germanic DNA by the way...just some that are more common in Scandinavia...etc...the Germanic peoples have many different genetic markers like all ethnic groups) than the English. Many would be, and are, genetically descended from the Celts, Slavs...etc...All these 'Genetic Groups' did not vanish, they assimilated into a culture. For instance the Celts in what is now Germany, it seems obviously that they did not just vanish or get destroyed, they just entered a new ethnicity (in this case a Germanic one). You, Enzedbrit (and others with such views) are not saying that the Germans are not a Germanic nation, are you? If you are then you are mistaken. I for one think many Wikipedians should leave their outdated views on 'race' and genetics at the door before editing articles, but that is just my opinion. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

merge

there is no modern day "Germanic" self-identity, and the term "Germanic peoples" is not commonly used to refer to contemporary nations. I suggest we merge this article as a "Modern" section into Germanic tribes (and move that to the Germanic peoples section. The distinction of "tribes" and "peoples" is fluid, and historical peoples like the Franks or the Lombards certainly qualify as organized "nations" beyond savage "tribes" (while the present division into "peoples" and "tribes" makes it look like the latter are more primitive) dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I changed the one sentence under Contemporary Germanic peoples section because it didn't make any sense, as you can see below:

"Present-day peoples Germanic speaking peoples include and there descendants:"

I just made it a little shorter, hope no one minds. I have done a lot of work on this topic when I was in school, so I hope I can help fine tune this article in the future. Thanks.

Request

Would people stop removing, Spaniards, French, and Northern Italians from the Contemporary Germanic peoples section. Even though they no longer speak the language Spain, France, and Northern Italy were all heavily settled by the Germanic tribes. Almost all of Western Europe has some sort of genetic input from the Germanic tribes, so please stop removing countries form the list. Thank you.

• I removed Spaniards because they don't fit the category and I'm fully aware that Spain was ruled by Visigoths for centuries...nonetheless, calling Spaniards 'contmporary Germanic people' is a HUGE stretch of the imagination and it reeks of a pro-Germanic worldview. Cite a source if you want it to be even considered.--Hraefen 18:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Same I think its wrong to Deny the HUGE impact of culture from the Visigoths. Even thought Spain was ruled by the Muslims and Romans and draw there laganuage from the Romans the Visigoths and Vandals to a smaller degree contruibed the many Spanish traditions. I agree people should stop removing French North Italians and Spaniards from the group.

I think that's wrong to deny the impact of the Visigoths upon the Spanish people. The Visigoths settled and ruled Spain and obviously made an impact on their culture and genetic make up. Most of their nobles continued on to be of Visigoth ancestry long after Spain fell to Islam. Below is one good link with Germanic History: http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm Also please don't bring up a "pro-Germanic" worldview again. I myself am Jewish and believe me I have no pro-German agenda. I just want to see the truth to be shown in these articles, which is getting harder and harder to do. The period form he Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance is barley if at all taught in schools and it is very important to show how the Germanic tribes shaped the modern world. I hope I can gather enough references to put Spanards back in. Thank you.

Though there was that Germanic admixture, the contemporary French, Spanish, and Italians are generally categorized as Mediterranean/Latin.--Nectar 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really Most Spaniards frenchman and Northern Italians say there either both or normally just since its Nordic types acutally the onyl reason they really state there Mediterranean/Latin is because of the Latin based Laganuages they speak. I think you are confusing Laganuage with Decendants. I think the users with Diagram shows it very well.

• Everyone PLEASE sign your comments. I'm all for including info in the article about the Germanic influence in ANY culture, but having just a list provides ZERO context that everyone who has commented here seems to be able to provide. So let's get some info with some sources and give each of these groups a paragraph that can give some nuance to the claim that "Spaniards are Germanic." I'm currently working on List of Spanish words of Germanic origin and I think much of that info could be used in this article. I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, I just want the article to reflect the more complex picture which is ancestry/race/culture etc.--Hraefen 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok heres the only problem with this whole thing In real life NO one is pure Germanic proabably the only pure Germanics are the Scanadivians but still they have some celtic influence just like the Germans. The article about Germans even says Celtics are part of the eqaution. I am glad we can a civil conversionation about this instead of constant revert war. But like i said in reality almost all these group are PURE Germanic and have either some roman influence or anhestory like the British do because Roman conquered Britian. However Hraefen this seems like a creditable source stating Spaniards are deffently Germanic http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm, which was signed by the unsigned user above. --XGustaX 12:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed...most groups are not 100% Germanic or Italic or Celtic etc. but no one is singling out the Dutch, English, Swedes etc. as groups where some explanation/justicfication needs to be made because it is apparent to anyone who knows anything about history. It seems that the North Italians, French and Spaniards are the ones which keep being removed and the re-added to the list. So let's write short to medium-length paragraphs for these three groups which can provide some context for the claims. If anyone doubts that one of these other groups belongs on the list, then we can write a paragraph for that group as well. I just don't want to oversimplify a topic (which I think we both agree is somewhat complex) by having a list where groups are either included or not included.--Hraefen 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree. This should be what we should concerate on. (24.60.161.63 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Historical Germanics once occupied Southern Europe, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, but none of these areas are considered Germanic in modern usage. On the cultural side, the languages of Southern Europe belong to a different family, and they have a different religion. On the genetic side, Southern Europeans, even in northern Italy, - though they may have Germanic admixture - look categorically different from the traditional Germanics.

It's good for the article to discuss the historical influence on these regions, but categorizing them as Germanic goes beyond established usage, in which they're referred to as Latin or Mediterranean. Ideally, this article would reference genetic studies, as the Welsh people article does.[1] Anyone want to look for such studies? --Nectar 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• That is complete bull thought I have talked to many Europeans especially Irish and British, even thought Spainards and Northern Italians are in Southern Europe, it DOES NOT automatically put them into the racial group of medditerean. Many of these British and Irish people (including I) Ive talked to say Spaniards are Germanic. I think you are thinking of the Nordic Theory that was thought up of the 1900's, which was is now completely seen as BS.( especially by us Europeans). To say that Spaniards Northern Italians and frenchmen look different is just stupid the British and Germans look different but there still Germanics right? The thing is these groups all share certain "charactistics" that others don't but there is NO tradional looking Germanic. Germanics at least by Roman accounts ive read could have Blonde hair all the way to pitch black hair. So your "arugement" is flawed. Also Germans today have much different noses then the British. Thanks. (24.60.161.63 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
• Thanks for including that BBC link, Nectarflowed, it is incredibly interesting, especially the part about the Celt-Basque link. If someone could find similar genetic studies for Spanish, French, and North Italians I think it would greatly improve this article. That being said, genetics is only one side of the story. Cultural influences play a huge role in the development of a culture, and regardless of what genetic studies would show (if someone can find such info...I hope so) about the genetic makeup of modern Spaniards, Frenchmen, and Northern Italians, we can still incude information about the cultural influence that Germanic people and Germanic languages have had on these groups. Fascianating stuff.--Hraefen 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Your right. You can not say ALL Germanics even look the same they have a wide range of physical features. http://www.white-history.com/hwr23.htm I found this Article which states at the time of Muslim invasion. It also states about the Muslims being the other key element of contruibe to race in Spain however most Spaniards dont not have Muslim blood due the Reconquesta which ended in 1492 and the Spanish Inquistion. http://www.white-history.com/hwr22.htm also found here. From reading this I think its pretty safe to state that They are Germanics I will look more for the French and Northern Italians. Thanks. (XGustaX 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
• First off, from reading the links to white-history.com, I seriously doubt the objectivity. Secondly, to believe that Spaniards, based on your above argumanet, are definitely and thoroughly Germanic, one would have to assume that the Iberian peninsula was completely devoid of human settlement prior to the presence of the Visigoths, and this is obviously not true. There are examples of writings of Celtic-speaking people around the beginning of the common era. Also, Basques clearly contributed both culture and genetics. Add to this the presence of Roman soldiers and the claim that Spaniards are Germanic becomes a hard one to make without many qualifications. This type of balanced claim can only be accomplished with a paragraph(s), not with a list.--Hraefen 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right but that would mean NO one is on the List because even Germans themselves have Celtic roots also. Same with some British who have Roman and Celtic anhestory. This is just to name a few groups. What I am not liking about your arugment which the website states very well and even some people have said so far on this talk page is that you seem to think some of these people are PURE Germanic no one is. There is no such thing as a pure Germanic due to admixing no matter where. You can find the History of were ever especially Germany and Britian. Romans controlled West Germania and that contrubied to German culture and some admixture with the addition of celts. I have found this article on the subject.http://libro.uca.edu/chaytor/hac3.htm and shows how even thought these groups were present Spain like Germany resisted and kicked out or assilmated these small groups. I had also found this from the U.S. Library of Congress that states the Visigoths where just more "Romanized" Germanic peoples.http://countrystudies.us/portugal/6.htm Thanks.(24.60.161.63 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

• I openly acknowledged above that no group as a whole can be considered 100% anything, but most Germans, Swedes etc. ARE predominantly Germanic and no one (so far...I guess) has said that they don't think these groups should be included. It's only the Spaniards, North Italians and Frenchmen which need some qualifications and explanations if they are to be included on a list of modern Germanic people. I personally think the list should be done away with and all groups should be discussed in a paragraph(s). This might necessiate the creation of a new page, but that's not such a bad thing, is it?--Hraefen 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree however you seem to include Roman decendants in Spaniards way to much Spaniards are as much Romans as the British are because the Visigoths did not accept them in there country. Like my source stated above however the Visigoths were the most "Romanized" hence that is why they speak a Latin Based langauge not as much because miniority Medditerrean people. Other "Romanized" Germanic peoples included the English decendants.(24.60.161.63 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

North African gene flow into Iberia

The last study on this page appears to find ~20% North African admixture into the Iberian population, in a latitudinal gradient (from Andalusia to Portugal, Catalonia, and Basque Country). AFAIK, Iberia may also have had a different pre-Indo-European substrate (which the Basques are an example of) and may have significant Greek admixture from Greek colonies that didn't occur in central Europe.

A more recently published synthesis (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999), based on genetic markers in Basques, Portuguese, Spaniards, and North Africans, supports substantial gene flow from paleo-North African populations to Iberia. Some genetic studies, in particular on the HLA system [a group of genes that are important for immunologic specificity and histocompatibility](Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1995; Martínez-Laso et al. 1995; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1997), have shown Iberian populations to be more closely related to North African populations than to the rest of Europe. In a recent study (Gómez-Casado et al. 2000), Moroccan Algerians show the closest genetic distance--based on HLA class I (A and B) and class II (DRB1) markers--followed by Berbers, Spaniards, and Basques. North African input into Iberia may be close to 20%, as shown by nuclear CD4/Alu markers (Flores et al. 2000b). It seems that the significance of the genetic links detected between North Africa and Iberia reflect both an ancient common substratum (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999) and, to a lesser degree, possible contacts between Christians and North African Muslims (A.D. 710-1492) in Iberia (Kandil et al. 1999), who had a Berber genetic substratum.

("North African Genes in Iberia Studied by Y-Chromosome DNA Haplotype 5," Gérard Lucotte, Nathalie Gérard, and Géraldine Mer, Human Biology 73.5 (2001) 763-769.)

--Nectar 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, anyone who uses a link to the "white-history page" is jsut a Nazi. People like you should be banned from this site. The Spanish are a Latin people. They are not Germanic. That is of course nonsense, but if you want more Genetic information on the Spanish here you have some:

Comas et al. (2000) Alu insertion polymorphisms in NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula: evidence for a strong genetic boundary through the Gibraltar Straits. Hum Genet; 107(4):312-9 An analysis of 11 Alu insertion polymorphisms...has been performed in several NW African...and Iberian...populations. Genetic distances and principal component analyses show a clear differentiation of NW African and Iberian groups of samples, suggesting a strong genetic barrier matching the geographical Mediterranean Sea barrier. The restriction to gene flow may be attributed to the navigational hazards across the Straits, but cultural factors must also have played a role. ... Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity. http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2867/pcplot0gd.jpg

Bosch et al. (2001) High-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet; 68(4):1019-29 The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool. This source is already included in the article

Flores et al. (2004) Reduced genetic structure of the Iberian peninsula revealed by Y-chromosome analysis: implications for population demography. Eur J Hum Genet; 12(10):855-63 Coincidentally, spatial analysis of genetic distances points to a focal distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this area. These results indicate that neither old or recent Levantine expansions nor North African contacts have influenced the current Iberian Y-chromosome diversity so that geographical patterns can be identified. ... The Y-chromosome variation landscape in Iberia was also evaluated using principal component analysis, which included samples with highly resolved Y-chromosome data from Europe...Near East...and Northwest Africa.... The first two components of the analysis accounted for 83.9% of genetic variance, and produced three well-separated clusters of populations, evidencing the sharp differences between the Y-chromosome pool of Western Europe, Near East and Northwest Africa (Figure 4). http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8581/iberians.jpg

Nasidze et al. (2003) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Hum Genet; 112(3):255-61 Andalusians and Catalans both cluster amongst other western Europeans: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2316/plot3ua.jpg

Hammer et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci; 97(12):6769-74 Spaniards (Spa) cluster right next to Germans (Ger) and far from North Africans: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9948/plot20uj.jpg

And finally, this study looks at the exact same blood group systems as this one [5] (plus two more, and two serum protein systems), yet finds North Africans and Iberians to be unrelated:

Simoni et al. (1999) Patterns of gene flow inferred from genetic distances in the Mediterranean region Hum Biol; 71(3):399-415 Here, we present an analysis of a data set of 10 allele frequencies in 39 populations of the Mediterranean region. ... The main boundaries separate the northern and the southern coasts, especially in their western portions; in addition, several localities appear genetically isolated. The comparatively high genetic differentiation across the western Mediterranean, where the sea distances between localities are shorter, strongly suggests that the sea distance by itself can hardly be regarded as a major isolating factor among these populations. On the contrary, the decrease in genetic resemblance between populations of the 2 coasts as one proceeds westward may reflect an increased genetic exchange in the eastern Mediterranean basin or independent human dispersal along the 2 coasts or both. ... The 5 strongest barriers inferred from Prevosti's distance divide the Mediterranean area into 2 large clusters, a northern cluster and a southern cluster. The first boundary, in particular, separates Morocco and Algeria from Spain, France, and Sardinia, despite the fact that sea distances between the 2 main coasts are much shorter than in the eastern portion of the region. ... The genetic boundary separating northern Morocco and Algeria from southern Spain appears as the zone of sharpest genetic change using Prevosti's distances and as the second most significant zone of change (after the zone separating Israeli Jews from all their neighbors) using Nei's distances.

And of course there is also genetic affinities with the Berbers of North Africa. Actually it seems that the majority of the Spanish population comes from the early inhabitants of the Peninsula, dating back to Paleolithic and Neolithic times and were of the so-called Mediterranean race. This race spread across Southern Europe, problably into the Middle East and the North of Africa. Present DNA testing seems to imply that this race also occupied important parts in Europe North of the Pyrenees and in the British Isles. As far as the Berbers are concerned it seems that they also belong to this Mediterranean Substratum, so I think it would not be strange to find genetic similarities between Berbers, Spaniards and other Europeans, like Portuguese, Italians, French, important portions of the British Isles, etc.

If you are interested in the genetic affinities of other Europeans, see also:

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

or:

"The Tat-C haplogroup was observed at significant frequencies in each of the southern Middle Siberian populations studied. Surprisingly, it reached its highest frequency in the Siberian Eskimos and Chukchi from the Chukotkan peninsula. The Tat-C haplogroup was absent in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk region populations that have maintained greater geographic and/or linguistic isolation (e.g., the Udegeys, Nivkhs, and Upriver Negidals) and was only detected in the populations likely to have had recent contact or shared origins with the populations of southern Middle Siberia (e.g., the Okhotsk Evenks, Ulchi/Nanai, and Downriver Negidals). Because the Tat-C polymorphism originated on a Y chromosome containing the DYS7C deletion (haplogroup 7C), which was present only in the Middle Siberian Tuvans, Buryats, Tofalars, and Yenisey Evenks, the Tat-C haplogroup probably entered the Lower Amur and eastern Siberia from southern Middle Siberia. This conclusion is consistent with the previous hypothesis that the Tat-C and 7C haplogroups arose in central Asia and migrated west to northern Europe and east to Chukotka (Zerjal et al. 1997). "The network of Tat-C and DYS7C haplotypes revealed that the ancestral Tat-C haplotype (7C[11-11-10-10]) was found only in southern Middle Siberia, indicating that this Y-chromosome lineage arose in that region. Moreover, the limited microsatellite diversity and resulting compact nature of the network indicates that the Tat-C lineage arose relatively recently (Zerjal et al. 1997). The absence of the Tat-C haplogroup in the Americas, with the exception of a single Navajo (Karafet et al. 1999), along with its high frequency in both northern Europe and northeastern Siberia, indicates that the Tat-C lineage was disseminated from central Asia by both westward and eastward male migrations, the eastward migration reaching Chukotka after the Bering Land Bridge was submerged. Both the M45 and Tat-C haplogroups have been found in Europe, indicating both ancient and recent central Asian influences. However, neither of these major Middle Siberian Y-chromosome lineages appears to have been greatly influenced by the paternal gene pool of Han Chinese or other East Asian populations (Su et al. 1999)." (Lell et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2002)

Tat-C Frequencies Yakuts..........87% Eskimos.........61% Chukchi.........58% Finns...........55% Buryats.........52% Tofalars........47% Lithuanians.....47% Lapps...........42% Estonians.......37% Maris...........33% Latvians........32% Nenets..........30% Tuvans..........18% Chuvash.........18% Russians........14% Ukrainians......11% North Swedes.....8% Gotlanders.......6% Norwegians.......6% Poles............4% Germans..........3% Armenians........3% Slovakians.......3% Danes............2% Belarusians......2% Turks............1%

7C Frequencies Nenets..........50% Tofalars........47% Tuvans..........28% Buryats.........15% Maris...........17% Czechs...........6% Estonians........4% Russians.........4% Finns............2% Yugoslavians.....2% Cypriots.........2% Poles............1% Slovakians.......1% Turks............1%

(Kittles et al. 1998, Rosser et al. 2000, Dupuy et al. 2001, Wells et al. 2001, Lell et al. 2002 and Puzyrev et al. 2003)

So, you can see things are much more complicated that you seem to think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.249.135 (talk • contribs)

You appear to have not read anything I've said. The page I linked to was provided by another user above, and I'm not so dogmatic to disqualify studies from discussion because they're linked to from afrocentric or any other ethnocentric site.--Nectar 02:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a link like the ¨white history page¨ has just a clear Nazi tendency. A site interested in spreading a bunch of lies that would be funny if they were not so pathetic. Those links should not be in a site like this. But of course if you are not so dogmatic, then we can add links that this, to keep this site up to a real good level:

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/index.html#gallery

• Spaniards Germans ??? Lol

Where are the Germans ???

http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_north.html http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_center.html http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_south.html

And anyway the italians with blond hair are not related at all with the German invaders , blond hair are present in italy since the Iron age , many Romans were described as blond :AUGUSTUS,NERO,CALIGULA,SULLA,CATO,TRAJAN etc...we have a lot of sources about this.. Plutarch,Suetonius,Tacitus etc...

.--GaiusCrastinus

Hi. We should be clear on this point.

The section specifically refers to 'CONTEMPORARY' Germanic descendants.

1. The Spanish do not culturally identify with the Germanic portion of their collective ancestry. If anything, Spaniards are more prone to emphasise chthonic ethnic identities, like the Basque population (rightfully) does in the present.

2. The Visigoths left almost no trace of their tribal culture in Spain- linguistically, spiritually, or nearly anything else identifiable as distinctly Germanic. The primary reason for this is that they failed to achieve the cultural unity (critical mass is a term used for this) necessary to perpetuate their own values and way of life through the centuries. They were absorbed by the other peoples that were living in what is now Spain. Citing the Visigoths for making points about the Spaniards having a Germanic heritage is nearly as ludicrous as citing the eastern Goths as a reason to include the people of Ravenna in Italia.

3. The contemporary Spanish nation uses Spanish. This is a Romance language. The cultural influences that most affect modern Spaniards stem from Italic, Islamic, and native indigenous peoples that pre-date the Visigothic invasion.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to assert that the Spanish peoples should be included in the contemporary Germanic descendants lists in this article. I will be *delighted* to peruse the texts you wish to use for this argument. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your whole arugment is flawed are you kidding me! yeah your right Spaniards dont speak a Germanic language but they are still the vast majority of them decents from them.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Genetic descent is nearly meaningless in terms of ethnographic identity. Genes do not determine cultural identity, ethnographic categorisation, or even much of anything else that is useful in the context of this discussion.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To say the Visigoths left no trace of there culture etc. is completly wrong.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

I did not say that they left no trace. I *did* state that the tribes identified as Visigothic did not achieve enough cultural unity to pass on their language, customs, and culture to their descendants in the Iberian peninsula to the degree that we can identify Spaniards as Germanic. Such an assertion is laughable at worst, and revisionist history at best.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This List of Spanish words of Germanic origin shows that Spaniards took many words from there Germanic anhestors. Also many places in with Castillian names are named from the Vandals and the Visigoths. Ex. Andalusia which they called Vandalusia and where it gets its name from.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

That list is not unusual for a present-day European language. English is the best exemplar of vocabulary absorbtion, one could argue, but the only notable language in Europe that has not absorbed a large amount of vocabulary from other languages in recent centuries is Icelandic, as far as I know.

The peoples that are included in the present Spanish nation are a diverse lot. The trade connexions between those peoples and other European peoples, American peoples, et cetera, is a vast network throughout history, even in just the past five-hundred years. Your argument here is meaningless in terms of reassigning the Spaniards to a Germanic heritage as a result.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also if you look at Visigothic artitechture it looks strikly simular to Spanish artitechture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_art.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

We do not have enough examples of that form of architecture to make such a claim as yours here. What, pray tell, are the distinguishing characteristics of a specifically Visigothic form of architecture during the small time that Visigoths were dominant in Iberia?

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And finally The Spanish Inquistion which kicked out people who were of non Germanic Christitian decent.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Incorrect. The Inquisition in the provinces that are now collectively named Spain did not kick people out if they were not Germanic. There was no sense of pan-Germanic identity and nationalistic ideas until later in history.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So I agree Spaniards do not speak a Germanic language but however they are Germanic or majority Germanic because no one is purely Germanic.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

...which essentially means nothing. Germanic peoples have interbred all over the Earth.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are stating is that Spaniards do not speak a Germanic language then you are right but other wise you a mistakly wrong. Thanks

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Your opinions are noted, but this is not the place for original research or revisionist history.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, we have the "assimilation" section to address events between "Migration age" and "contemporary". "Germanic" is a linguistic term. Obviously, Germanic peoples settled in what is today Spain, etc., but they stopped speaking a Germanic language centuries and centuries ago. We can explain this, but we cannot count Spaniards, Lombards etc. as "Germanics". Similarly, in as far as USians may be considered "a people", African Americans are "Germanics" by virtue of being native speakers of a variant of English: their ancestors were assimilated to a Germanic speaking environment, just like the Lombards were assimilated to a Latin speaking environment. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to sort the list now. We cannot expect it to perform much more than it does now. So Austro-Bavarian speakers are only a 85% majority in Austria; well, every country has ethnic and linguistic minorities, that still makes Austria overwhelmingly Austro-Bavarian, linguistically. We can list the Vorarlbergians separately. The subtle depths of the term "German" must be left to the German people article. Similarly for "English", I think the reference to English speakers all over the world should be enough, without giving a precise account. dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

linguistically, however, most Alsatians are "Romanized" and most Irish and Scots are "Anglicized". We may have to point out that a sense of ethnic identity may linger on after linguistic assimilation. We can, in any case, hardly claim the Lombards as Latin while at the same time claiming the Irish as Gaelic (native speakers of Irish Gaelic are down to less than 10%; Germany has about as many native speakers of Turkish :) Ok, so the Lombards have 0% speakers of Lombardic, but you are getting my point. dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Spanish people are NOT predominantly Germanic. Genetic tests on several occassions show them to be a mixed population that is largely Mediterranean, the Iberians were probably the Basques who in turn have some similarity the aboriginal Berbers of North Africa with some Celtic, Germanic, Italian and Phoenician elements. The historical record only speaks of conquests and scant settlements, while genetic tests reveal the impact upon the bulk of the population. A Visigothic ruling class does not equal Visigothic majority population. In fact the Goths were Latinized themselves and abandoned their language early on. Here are two genetic studies worth noting: Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean and this study shown on National Geographic: Proving History Through Science -- Phoenician’s Reborn through the DNA "Alphabet," the Y Chromosome which states that, The major conclusion reached that relates to the Lebanese indicates that they belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum. This means that the Lebanese share the same genetic identifiers like the Macedonians*, Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Anatolians (aboriginal Turks), Armenians and Iranians. Also, this study is interesting from Univ. of Chicago regarding the Celts: [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n4/41464/41464.web.pdf?erFrom=-6976005691513440788Guest The Longue Dure´e of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems

and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe]. Tombseye 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sources your are not Objective and prove nothing.(24.60.161.63 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

The American Journal of Human Genetics is not objective? Or Annals of Human Genetics? Come now... what are your qualifications in deciding that those two *very* well-respected journals are not publishing objective scientific papers? Your opinion is at odds with quite a lot of people (both geneticists as well as Tombseye, Dieter, and myself), and simply dismissing some excellent sources does not make them unadmissible in this discussion if they happen to indicate that your (unsupported as yet) assertions are not likely true. What should we be using as a source? The Oera Linda Book?!?! That forgery is the only source of which I am aware that will support your assertions here.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you must be the same guy who has made the Spanish people page into a joke. Have you noticed yet that no one is supporting your position? Prove they're not objective. How are Spanish researchers, Americans and Europeans not being objective? Because they didn't prove what you wanted to hear? They aren't saying there isn't any Germanic inflow, just not anywhere near in the majority. I think the one lacking objectivity here is you. Tombseye 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ToC

imho, the list of tribes should be exported to a list article, and be replaced by a summary of cultural, geographical and religious traits as described by Tacitus etc. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Emphatically agreed.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete the list of contemporary Germanics!!

Given the discussion above, especially dab's points, I suggest that we delete the section entirely and refer readers to Germanic languages. Since a serious genetic account of descendence is impossible, "Germanic-ness" could only be defined culturully. But which cultural elements, other than language, have the ancient Germanic people left to posterity? What specific cultural elements are there that English, Germans, Scandinavians etc. share but French, Poles, Slovenians and other Europeans do not? If noone is able to come up with such elements other than language, simply delete the section. Martg76 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Dear Martg76, actually I cannot understand why you are so ambitious and emotional about the topic. As you as an Austrian do not consider yourself to be of Germanic origin (that was your statement further above, wasn`t it) and your mother tongue is therefore German merely by accident, I strongly recommend you to not waste your precious time with this ignorants around here.

• I think outright deletion is too rash. This is a complex topic, one which is too complex to be covered by a simple list, but simply deleting it does not help the truth come out any more than having an unsatisfactory list does. I think Germanic people have contributed much to the modern world other than language (not gonna get into it here) but, assuming they haven't, the linguistic heritage alone is enough to merit a discussion on this page (or a sub-page as I have suggested). All sides can make their arguments...genetic and linguistic evidence can be included, NPOV can be maintained (apparently through much hard work and compromise), and the reader can decide for himself which traits are most important in determining one's ancestry/ cultural heritage etc. Deletion is not the answer.--Hraefen 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Acutally now that i really look at it i think its best your right. I have been trying to look for enthic groups these people all belong to and they never really state them. They only talk about the History of the people (which should be enough to put them as Germanic) but even for Germans they only thing they say is there Germanic because they speak a Germanic language however this is not what we are trying to find. So i agree maybe the section should be deleted entirely. note i found a very interesting thing about Visigothic buldings (which look simular to Spanish building today) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_art (24.60.161.63 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

In the U.S., we have Victorian, Swiss, Georgian, Gothic, and about 1000+ other architectural styles in use. This does not make Americans Germanic. A careful reading of at least the first half of Herwig Wolfram's 'History of the Goths' would be beneficial in laying this argument to rest.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

hm, look, since we have articles like Ethnic Germans and English (people) there is no reason not to link to those from this article, as the modern descendents of the historical Germanic peoples. There is no "Germanic unity", but there are traits. It should just be made clear that there is a lot of room for different tastes and terminologies. If a USian (of any descent) wanted to consider himself a "Germanic" person, he would have a point, being a native speaker of English; if he didn't want to, say, on grounds of not having a single Germanic ancestor, he would have a point too. We just give the links to those ethnic groups -- but what's an ethnic group? Certainly being an US citizen isn't an ethnicity? -- that speak Germanic languages today (and under "assimilation", those that ceased speaking theirs in historical times). Hey, the Japanese have Christmas trees and Santa Clauses -- there's a non-linguistic contribution of Teutonia for you; still nobody will claim the Japanese as Germanic because of that. I'd say we just link the Germanic speakers, provided they have an "ethnic group" article, and let the reader decide what they make of it. Maybe (if we get references), we can describe how much a given group considers itself ethnically "Germanic" in whatever way. If the Irish emphatically consider themselves Celtic in spite of their native language being (overwhelmingly) English, that's to be noted; if the Spaniards overwhelingly considered themselves "Germanic" or "Vandalic", rather than Romance, that would be noteworthy too, but we'd need some poll results to support that. dab (ᛏ) 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I exported the lists, hoping to give the article some breathing space. What is needed now is the coherent account, of course; we need more historical depth even in the list (which tribes are mentioned in Tacitus, which are later?). dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

*Þiuda-

Are we sure that the "generic þiuda- "people"" would designate Germanic people in opposition to non-Germanic people? If Russian čuždyj (чуждый) "foreign" is borrowed from Germanic *þiudiska- (Early Slavonic *tjudjǔ), it may count as an argument in support of that assumption. However, I am not at all sure that a Germanic-speaking person living in the 2nd century AD would describe any other Germanic-speaking person as þiudiskaz (or something like that) in contrast to the walhōz.

Perhaps the Germanic people didn't even know that they were Germanic, and therefore they would have no word for German etnicity. It is, more or less, the conclusion in Allan A. Lund's Die ersten Germanen: Ethnizität und Ethnogenese (Heidelberg 1998) ISBN 3825306852. Enkyklios 15:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

it depends on what you mean by "know". Obviously, they didn't have a scientific linguistic classification. They simply differentiated between "people" and "strangers". The "people" term would have no singular, just like in English. The "people" designation roughly corresponds with "Germanic". This is typical, and encountered worldwide: "People" means folk you can walk up to and ask for directions. "Strangers" are weird folk from foreign parts, dressing funnily and uttering tongue-twisting nonsense. Maybe they could be referred to as "the thiuda of the walha", I don't know, but simple "thiuda" apparently was confined to "regular people". The "thiudisk-" adjective is not claimed for the Migration period. It is medieval. A member of the "thiuda" was just a "man". The čuždyj point is intersting, I had not thought of that before. I don't understand what you mean by "they didn't know they were Germanic". Of course they didn't, any more than the Inuit knew they were "Eskimos". dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Germanic-speaking people perhaps didn't know they had something in common which was not shared by their Celtic and Roman neighbours. Of course they had no idea of linguistic classifications and isoglosses and all that. However, I think myself that this position is too extreme; you don't need a PhD in linguistics to know which people you understand and which not. But I considered the position it worth mentioning since a serious scholar defends it and it is very much in accordance with the current trends of scholarship.

I am still not sure that *þiuda- had the potential meaning of "regular people" to the exclusion of "weird folk from foreign parts, dressing funnily and uttering tongue-twisting nonsense". In fact it would not be too extraordinary to have a name for the strange strangers but none for yourself. The word for "people" (ἔθνος, not ἄνθρωπος) may in fact designate "foreigners" to the exclusion of normal people. The most famous example is, of course, Hebrew גוי "people" for the gentiles; another example is Lithuanian Tautà "Germany", Latvian tautas "foreigners" ~ tautà, tàuta "people". So we cannot assume a priori that the word for "people" would be automatically the word for "one's own people" as well. Yet, besides the čuždyj- (better: čužoj-) argument, I can find another argument in favour of your interpretation (I hope you appreciate my fairness), namely the verb *þeudian "interpret": German deuten, ONorse þýða, OEng. geþiedan "translate". Enkyklios 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have much of a dispute here. All I was pointing out was that seeing that they have a term for "non Germanic people" (Walha), it pretty much follows that they had a notion of "Germanic" vs. "non Germanic". So if walha meant "foreigners", what was the term for "non-foreigners"? Apparently the unmarked thiuda. It may be interesting that there appear to be people who have a marked term for "foreigners", and others that have a marked term for "us". I don't know what to conclude from this, though. The point of my edit was to fix a contradiction in the article, which seemed to assert that there was no word with the meaning of "thiuda" right after discussing "thiuda", and which went on about the recency of the "-isk" adjective, which was entirely beside the point. If you have a yet better way of phrasing it, by all means do. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish a Germanic people?

Come on people. If this site is to be taken seriously you must be serious. I am Spanish and we have nothing in common with the Germanic peoples, except for the fact that we are all Europeans, of course. We are Latin and Mediterranean. To evoke the Wisigoths is the same as to claim that the Dutch are Spanish people because the Low Countries were part of the Spanish Empire. I see a lot suspicious comments in the discussion page. (unsigned coment by User:65.11.73.155)

• Yeah, we had a problem with someone a while back who felt he needed to keep adding Spaniards to the list of Germanic peoples which used to be here but is now at, interestingly enough List of Germanic peoples. I thought we had weeded all that out of the article. Did you see something in the article itself (not the talk page) which makes such a claim?--Hraefen 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Spaniards, while not culturally Germanic nor speak a Germanic language have Germanic realtives, so yeah they wouldnt be on the list of Germanic speaking peoples, but they are related to Germanic people ethically. I think many people confuse Germanic speakers/culture with being meaning you are Germanic, this is not always the case Spaniards. I am also a Spaniard, and althought most of us say we are Latin/Mediterranean this is almost never meant in terms ethic composition. Most of also say that at least in terms of our realtives we are all a mix of Mediterranean and Germanics. (24.60.161.63 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

XGustaX stop this misinformation campaign. You are not a Spaniard you are a swede from Argentina as is clearly stated in your personal page. I have just noticed the edit war you have created in the Spanish People Article. Why do you want to include us Spaniards in the Germanic peoples??? It sounds pretty insane to me.... we certainly dont look very Germanic. :-) --Guzman ramirez 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ALL Indo-European groups are somewhat realted. Spaniars are however deffinately NOT Germanic. They are Latin, what's this fuss about everyone wanting to be Germanic!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.181 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the visigoths and suebians ruled spain for 300 years... though they only contributed about 2% of the population a lot of mdoer nspanish words are dervied from them especially tree and animal names —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.241.240 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

Removed two links, both clearly POV to say the least. But I am not too happy with the remaining two links either. The BBC link, while interesting, is really only relevant to the history of Britain and the other link listing European countries using Germanic languages isn't up to the level I would expect from Wikipedia. jax 07:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion request

The "Origin" section does not specifiy whether the temperature decrease in Scandanavia was in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit. It would be nice if it linked to a more general article about climate change in that era. (After looking through some historical climate change articles, I'm not sure what the proper topic would be, or if a new article needs to be written about this time period.)

Decent

Many words in Spanish come from their genetically decents and other Germanic tribes also. I'm not sure what this means; it appears descent would be more in its place than decent. But it should probably be rephrased completely in a more understandable way. Piet 19:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I did a rewrite and got rid of that whole line. I think it's much better now. Thanks for pointing that out. --Hraefen 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Improvement of "Culture"

I think the hoaky list of tribal ancestors ought to just go away. If you click on Angul, for example, you get a disambiguation page leading back to Germanic peoples. Someone seems to be getting rid of the awful red links by linking them to anywhere. Then they have a nice blue color and it looks much better. Bad idea. Anyway, there isn't really much to say about a tribal ancestor, as the only thing you might know about him is his name, which is his raison d'etre. When in doubt, throw it out.

For ancient culture of course there is no one better than Tacitus. But when you start looking at the culture - lo and behold, it doesn't really differ from anyone else's culture. The Germans gambled. So did everyone else. They sacrificed humans. So did everyone else. They hated authority. So doesn't everyone, and so on and so on. I got an ear, you got an ear, I got a nose, you got a nose, etc. The only thing we might do there is make it specific: here is when the Germanics got interested in tribal alliances (just like everyone else), here is when they were unified into a nation (just like everyone else). The Germanic women were real great. So were the Celtic women. So were the Slavic women. Come to think of it, aren't women great! I had a mother and so did you and so did they and so did everyone. But, maybe they dressed a little differently. I suppose one might say something about Germanic women going to the battle with their men. Well gee golly, so didn't the Celtic women. And what do you know, both Greek and Roman armies had female camp followers. Gladiators had them by the score. I say, this mystique about the Germanic culture is the biggest bunch of malarky I ever saw. Let's get superman out of here.

So what do we put in? How about the sort of thing anthropologists would put in: some customs, a little ideology, you know, here is how we do things among the Angles, but the Goths do it a little differently (if they do). Who had what runes and when. Who was converted to Christianity (if they were) and how and when. It is going to have to be very general and that is part of the problem. Culture history of several hundred million people in seven paragraphs. Bunk. Would you consider just excising this subsection?Dave 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't really care much about genetics (unless people use it to claim a country isn't, say, Germanic) and as much as I believe in one race I don't think this subsection needs much of a . Why should we excise the subsection? Germanic culture is wonderful as is Gaelic. There is a Gaelic subsection also.

Cultures need there own sections to group together all the subcultures that belong to them (e.g. Gothic subculture in the case of Germanic culture). King Óðinn The Aesir 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How big were Germanic tribes?

I am reading a fiction book set in Gaul at the time of Julius Caesar, allegedly based on historical sources, that claimed that ‘a Germanic nation’ of 250,000 men, women and children crossed the Rhine (I assume this was based on/was the Suebi led by Ariovistus). That made me wonder how big these Germanic tribes were. Obviously there are few reliable historical accounts and tribes would have been of different sizes, but I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any historian making an estimate.Chwyatt 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

that's sounds like a rather tall order. World population in those days was at ca. 200 million, so that would amount to more than 0.1% of the world's population crossing the Rhine. Entire peoples could measure of the order of 200,000, (e.g. the entire Etruscan civilization) but individual tribes were more likely of the order of several 10,000s at most. Confederations of tribes could still reach more than 100,000: Caesar says that the Helvetii consisted of 370,000 souls, but that might also be an over-estimation. The Teutones also hit the road numbering more than 100,000 (again according to Roman sources, which might be exaggerated). Your 250,000 sound thus authentic for a Roman estimate of dubious reliability :) dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Julius Caesar certainly liked to tell a tall story for his own self-aggrandisement Chwyatt 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Austrians

anon, you seem to be confusing Germanic and German. Austrians may not be the latter, but they are certainly the former. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Anon 195.34.133.60 if you continue with you actions without paying attention to what others say you are a vandal... The Ogre 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My watchlist is going crazy over this, so I have to jump in here. Anon 195.34.133.60, this article defines "Germanic" as "people speaking Germanic languages." As Austrians do speak a Germanic language, they are in fact Germanic as defined by this article. No one is calling Austrians "German," so don't take such umbrage over this. --TurabianNights 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Caption: Pagan?

• The caption for the first picture describes Thor as a pagan god. I realize that many, if not most, intellectual/academic circles, regardless of their religious beliefs, have come to accept the use of pagan as meaning not Christian, possibly out of convenience. But let's not forget that this term (along with heathen, which shares a very similar sense development) was at best, mildly offensive to start with (cf. ModE country bumpkin, hick), and grew to become undoubtedly derogatory. I obviously have a strong opinion on this, but it's my contention that using the word pagan here is a POV. So can we just say that Thor was a god (without a qualifying adjective) and let the reader decide for himself whether he was/is any more or less civilized, real or worthy than any other supposed god? Any thoughts?--Hraefen 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are being a bit oversensitive about it, but I don't have any problems with "Germanic," as that is the idea we are trying to communicate anyway.--TurabianNights 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of the Word German

Do people really think Caesar (Romans) would have been so stupid as to use a name for the germans that so easely could have been misunderstood by the roman populus?

Norwegians, danes and swedes still call eachother brother-people (broderfolk (s)- brødrefolk (pl)), and see eachother as having the same origins and culture.

The romans didn't have to see them as their own brother people to name them so, because the different germanic people probably saw themselves as brother people and as having the same origins as the other germanic tribes.

The germans were a category of people who called eachother "brother poeple" and spoke the same language.

The Nazis probably said that the romans called the germans germans because they saw them as having the same source as the romans, alas all the weird PC etymological explanations refuting the obvious explanation.

   sverre - norway

I am a bit puzzled about the etymologic explanations in this article.

Being German myself, I learnt 30 years ago (possibly outdated?) that German stems from ger or gar (a short spear, main weapon of the Germanic warriors) and manus (Latin for hand). Thus the Germans are those holding a spear in their hands (in contrast to the Romans armed with shield and sword).

The name Edgar, for instance, means "the one who holds the spear".

Has this explanation been proven wrong or shouldn't it at least be mentioned?

karvajalka 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A hybrid compound of a Germanic noun and a Latin noun is rather unlikely, and compounds of two nouns are unusual in Latin anyway.

The etymology is also improbable phonologically. The ethnonym Germānus has a long ā, whereas the Latin noun mănus has a short ă. Furthermore, in the first century BC, the Germanic noun was pronounced *gaiza-, and the voiced z did not become r until much later. As a matter of fact, the Germanic word, or more likely a Celtic cognate, was indeed borrowed into Latin in the form of gaesum (e.g. Caesar, BG 3.4.2, Vergil, Aen. 8.662 gaesa manu!). So, the compound should have been *Gaesĭmănī (like ūnĭmănus "one-handed").

The other conceivable possiblity, a native compound of *gaiza- and, say, *manna- "man", i.e. *Gaizamanna- "spear-men", is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of Germanic word formation. It cannot, however, be the basis of the Latin form Germānī. It would amost certainly have become something like *Gaesomăn(n)ī in Latin; cf. *Markamanna- "border men" > Marcomăn(n)ī (the short ă being confirmed by Statius, Silvae 3.3.170).

Enkyklios 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't the word 'German' come from the word 'Herman' (wich, as I think I remember, meant something like friend or brother)? Allthough I have to agree that it looks a bit like popular ethymology. Anyone cares to shine his or her proper philological light on it? Krastain 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I watched a documentary on Germany during the Roman era today and a historian explained an interesting etymology. The Suebi had occupied part of Gaul and the surrounding Gaulish tribes called them Germani (neighbors) so the name only applied to this tribe. Ceasar's legions were scared of them because they were considerably stronger and taller than Romans and he had difficulty convincing them it would be worthwhile to attack other German tribes outside the border of Gaul after they had defeated this tribe. Back in Italy after pacifying Gaul the name Germania was then used as propaganda by implying the various divided tribes were actually a single race and were thus a serious threat to Rome. Apparently to get support for a military campaign that the Romans were not really interested in at that time. Wayne (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Self name of tribes

The word "Apparently" in the last paragraph on the etymology of German disturbs me a bit. According to all what I have read it was indeed so that the tribes had initally no notion of being related to each other or belonging to a bigger group of tribes. The definition of a stranger (in absence of a bigger picture in historic, geographic and ethnologic terms) was necessarily based on the question whether or not you understood the other. The Slavs, for example, called everyone they could understand slav, i.e. (talking) straight, whereas all whom they couldn't understand were called nemec (meaning German today).

Further, isn't the word Dutch just an imitation of the sound Deutsch used by someone who mistook people from the Low Lands with Germans as the two languages sounded so similar and one didn't understand the one nor the other? That's what I always believed: the word Dutch as a result of an ignorant misunderstanding.

karvajalka 23:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the word "Dutch" was simply what all continental Germanic peoples called themselves, and that for some reason in English, the term stuck only to the people of the Netherlands (and the Pennsylvania Dutch). john k 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bavarian / Alemannic

"The most difficult of these to define is "Germans", with quasi-ethnic subgroups like Bavarians (who "ethnically" could be considered Austro-Bavarian) or Swabians ("ethnically" Alemannic). "

This is nonsense. Austro-Bavarian means ethnically Bavarians but living in Austria (the majority of the Austrians) and the Alemanni are a Germanic tribe. The Germans are a federation of Germanic tribes e.g. Saxons, Thuringi, Alemanni, Hessians, Bavarians, Franks etc.

'The' Germans weren't (and still aren't) a federation of Germanic tribes. The moment the Germans (Deutschers) united there were no more tribes.

Surely the Bavarians were originally the Celtic Boii, or am I mistaken? Gabhala 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking Bavaria for Bohemia. But, still you are right, and wrong too. First; 'Bavarians' wasn't the name of a distinct people (allthough it is today), but rather a name that indicates that they come from Bavaria. Second; Celts lived in the whole of Southern Germany at one time, but before them and after them others lived there, so I don't think you can say that 'Bavarians' originally were Celts. Krastain 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

When it comes to listing ethnic groups from the British isles here as being Germanic peoples one must be cautious. All peoples native to the British isles speak English. English evolved in Britain and was brought to Ireland by the Normans. The Angle settlers of Scotland introduced the language to Scotland when it was introduced to England and Teuton settlers also brought it to Wales although conquest by England cemented it. This is all known history. Some people in Britain speak Celtic languages as a first language too. Celtic languages are spoken in Scotland, English, Ireland and Wales. Yes, England too and not just Cornish. The majority of all peoples in these countries speak English as a first language. Culturally, the people of Britain share the same culture which is almost identical in Ireland. The only differences are regional and affect all national entities of the British isles, or are political. To say that Wales has a Celtic culture and England a Germanic one for example is repeating what one has heard but doesn't hold true. That's why I think it is very difficult to list peoples as being 'Germanic' simply because they speak a Germanic language. The English, Scottish and Welsh are British peoples and the Irish are Irish. The Celtic nations are classified as such for one reason and one alone: they possess a Celtic language. The people of these countries aren't thus 'Celts' anymore than the English are 'Germanic' or 'Anglo-Saxons'.

In the article there is a category for Germanic peoples. This should be changed to Germanic languages. Germanic cultures would even be better but even then it is still controversial as no doubt England would be listed, some clueless person would put Scotland and state 'mix of Gaelic and Germanic' and omit Wales as being 'Celtic'. What differences exist in the popular culture of these countries would be hard pressed to point out.

There needs to be a lot more thought in these articles and a lot more discussion on the talk page. What we might like to believe isn't always actual truth and I'd hate to see Wikipedia be the source of more 'Braveheart' history. Enzedbrit 09:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, why are you saying that this is misleading?

• Saxon hordes ousted Celts Men living in Wales are genetically distinct from men living in England. (Report on a study by Mike Weale et al.)

Please provide sources for your statement. All I can find on the page for English people is the following research report:

• A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles; Cristian Capelli, Nicola Redhead, Julia K. Abernethy, Fiona Gratrix, James F. Wilson, Torolf Moen, Tor Hervig, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Peter A. Underhill, Paul Bradshaw, Alom Shaha, Mark G. Thomas, Neal Bradman, and David B. Goldstein Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages 979-984 (2003). Retrieved 6 December 2005.

Whose relevant conclusion is that Quote:

The detailed sampling scheme used here identified other previously unknown regional patterns in the degree of continental input. For example, the Central-Eastern part of England experienced the most continental introgression. In addition, our inclusion of samples from Wales additional to those of Weale et al. [7] indicates that the transition between England and Wales is somewhat gradual, which was not visible in the samples analyzed in the Weale et al. study

--Stor stark7 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The article 'Saxon Hoards Ousted Celts' from the same source as the BBC 'The English and Welsh are Races apart' is based on the research released in 2002. The Y Chromosome analysis is one piece and there are others and my not listing them here doesn't negate that they exist or detract from my argument but at this time I'm rushed and haven't the time but I can do it later. The approach that you had taken is wrong because you say 'Celtic origin of the Welsh' and 'Germanic origin of the English' and that is wrong fundamentally because Celtic and Anglo-Saxon are primarily linguistic categorisations and using the term 'Celtic' to be racial is largely avoided by historians and modern scholars. The Welsh are not a 'Celtic' race nor are the English 'Germanic' and the two are not mutually distinct in terms of culture or blood. Both the Welsh and the English are of British origins - we are British peoples, we are British people. It's not complex. We all speak English, most of us as a first language, and we are all descended primarily from the same aboriginal inhabitants of our island. Simple stuff. English is associated with England and that fact alone is why England is listed as a Germanic country and Wales isn't because the Welsh language is Celtic. To keep the article as you had it before shows a lack of understanding about British history and leans to a bias of Welsh or English racial nationalism which seeks a greater autonomy based on racial division. That isn't reality and is based on Victorian period ideals of racial purity in which those of powerful English and lowland Scottish society sought this as a truth. Even my saying that is somewhat fancifully based on what was a contemporary reality but is far more accurate than 'English are Germanic, Welsh are Celts'. A genetic analysis of the population of England and Wales shows that really there isn't much difference at all except for a few exceptional circumstances in areas largely untouched by invasion, or subject to repetitive invasions. Example: much of western England remains largely untouched by invading armies, many samples from north Wales show a very 'pure' link to our earliest ancestors, and Cumbri and the north west of England shows what could be termed 'Viking' influence, not Anglo-Saxon. The difference between what is English and Welsh is based on a cultural domination by a powerful ruling class subjugating the native people as is believed to have happened by the Celts over the pre-Celtic ancient Britons and by the Normans over the English speaking Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Scotland and Wales 1,500-2,000 years later, and as American culture is doing now it can be said. Enzedbrit 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph did not make any sense whatsoever and greatly misinterprets and overvalues one or two unreliable studies of population genetics. Your opinion is greatly misguided on this topic and the differences between the peoples of Britain isnt merely national, it is obviously ethnic as well. There is nothing in the studies which state that people in Cumbria or Western England don't have any Anglo-Saxon ancestry, just that it is less than that found in Eastern England. The genetic analysis in fact does show differences between Welsh and English and in fact a significant similarity between Cornish and Welsh. Not that this matters since this is only ONE study based on Y-chromosome data only, ignoring numerous other bloodlines of our genetic genealogy and its findings are also contradicted by a different study carried out only a few months earlier. 69.157.126.88 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes lots of sense and misinterprets nothing. My opinion is anything BUT misguided. You are the one that is misguided and I base that confidently on your comment that Brythonic culture in England is all but gone apart from in Cornwall - what a bigoted piece of rubbish! Clearly you know nothing about what 'Brythonic' means and to say it remains only in Cornwall buys into fanciful thinking yet not into reality. What do you even mean by that? Such a comment flies in the face of my entire up bringing. I can't understand your ignorance. Also, there is nothing 'obviously ethnic' about the differences among the people of Britain - where did THAT come from? I also didn't say that there is no 'Anglo-Saxon' heritage in Cumbria, but that the heritage is Viking, not Anglo-Saxon, and history records that the Britons of this area repelled the Angles. There is NO evidence that shows the English and the Welsh are different, and the Welsh and Cornish are similar and not to the English at all. Any research that says this has been unproven and/or surpassed. What is proven is that the British are predominately ancient Briton. The study a few months earlier to the Y chromosome study you speak of has been disproven and is absolute rubbish as to work it would imply that there is no migration between England and Wales and migration between these two countries has always been as frequent as that within these two countries. What has kept the British so relatively homogenous is the fact that we are an island nation.

Your opinions might get you a lot of applause with the handful of Cornish nationalists in this world, and nowhere else. Enzedbrit 09:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What another pitiful discourse with no academic grounding. First and foremost, the study by Weale has by no means been "disproven" or discredited since only one other subsequent (and equally unreliable) Y-chromosome study has been carried out. How is that comment about Brythonic culture in England "bigoted rubbish" ? Do you even know what bigot means ? Please do tell me what elements of Brythonic culture remain in Enlish society ? There is barely any, even in places like Cumbria. What little that does remain, if you can point such out to me, still isnt anything on the level with that found in Cornwall, where the only surviving variant of a Brythonic language in England has persisted (even if by only a few thousand speakers). You are in fact ignorant to say that there are no ethnic cleavages within the peoples of Britain as most will obviously disagree with you on this fact. Whether going by inconclusive Y-chromosome studies or not, there is still evidence of some differing genealogies between the peoples of Britain and they are by no means ethnically or culturally "one unified people". The heritage in Cumbria does have a significant Viking element, like the rest of Northern as well as Eastern England (although Norwegian Vikings also settled there, not merely Danish), but the area was controlled by the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria before the area became controlled under the Danelaw. In any case, after the Viking age, there was much migration into and out of Cumbria from other areas of England which would have brought in other Anglo-Saxon bloodlines. As with regards to the English and Welsh, there is no evidence saying that they are not ethnically different either. I did not mean to say that the English and Welsh are completely distinct from each other since they obviously do share much of their origins in common, but they do have some differing ethnic elements as well. The Welsh on the whole trace their origins to Brythonic celts (the level of Celtic migration to the isles is highly disputed and unknown) and pre-celtic peoples (Paleolithic; Neolithic hunter-gatherers) but have had very minimal Germanic influence, and any such influence may be in fact due to much more recent migrations of English people into Wales. There was barely any Viking settlement in Wales (mainly in Pembrokeshire), if any at all, and if the culture of the Anglo-Saxons never spread into Wales, it is highly unlikely any settled there in significant numbers as they did in England. The Y-chrom. studies carried out point out to an "ancient British" paternal element (although the study itself does not conclude what and when this is referring to, whether Celtic/Iron-Age, Neolithic, Paleolithic, etc.) that is found across Britain, but is more common in Wales and the Western regions of England than in the east. The peoples of Britain do retain their relatively homogoenous origins, but this is not merely because of island isolation, especially when Britain has seen the migration and settlement of many types of people (Neolithic and Bronze-Age invaders, Iron-Age Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings have all left a demographic impact). Although an island, it has a very close proximity to the continent and the sea has historically shown to have not been a barrier to migrations with many peoples arriving by sea, from the Neolithic hunter-gatherers to Norwegian and Danish Vikings. Also, many continental peoples in Europe and elsewhere have a much higher degree of ethnic and cultural homogeneity, especially in the east (eg. the peopels of the Balkans), which goes to show that the level of homogeneity is not merely because of geographical factors, but also (if not more so) socio-cultural ones. Whatever your "upbringing", I do not see how the fact that the English have barely any Brythonic or Celtic cultural elements would fly in its face. I do not intend to carry this on much further as I have read some of your earlier discussions with other users and clearly you have some unfounded opinions when it comes to ethnographic articles, especially in regards to the peoples of Britain. This is easily shown by your over-reliance on one study (itself which admits to be not fully conclusive in any form) from only one fraction of our paternal bloodline, let alone the rest of our genealogy (including autosomal DNA, X-chromosome, MtDNA, etc.) 69.157.126.88 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Assimilated Germanic peoples"

Why do I recall reading from a Wikipedia article about the Irish, Finns, etc. being classified as "assimilated Germanic peoples" while recently when I tried to find information about it from Wikipedia I failed to do so. Am I remembering wrong or have all references to assimilated Germanic peoples been deleted from Wikipedia? I'm getting a 1984-kind of feeling here... --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a strange term to me - either a people is classed as Germanic or it isn't, and even then the term is being misused I believe. Are not all people 'Germanic' by 'assimilation'? The Irish were 'assimilated' by Anglo-Normans who brought the Germanic middle-English language to Ireland, a language that over time became the dominant language of that island. But the old English language was brought to England by Angle, Saxon and Jutish tribes from Europe which, over time, became the dominant language of Britain too. What's the difference? If one responds, think carefully before you do. Enzedbrit 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "assimilated Germanic peoples" seems to suggest that the Germanicity or non-Germanicity of an individual is racial rather than linguistic; to my mind, this is a dangerous road to follow. Any person who speaks a Germanic language as his first language is one hundred percent Germanic, whether he is black or white, Irish or Jutish, Christian or Jew. A black Moslem born in the US is not any less Germanic than I, a blond and blue-eyed Christian born in Denmark. The only difference is that virtually all my ancestors were Germanic for the last 2,000 years (I suppose). But as Enzedbrit points out, all Germanic people are assimilated ultimately. I have no idea what language my genetic ancestors spoke 6,500 years ago, but I am quite sure that it was not Germanic and probably even not Indo-European. Enkyklios 09:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Enzedbrit and Enkyklios. I think I remembered wrong, although I'm still puzzled over the whole thing. Yes, I do mean it in a racial, not lingual, sense. For example, Finns would be considered an assimilated Germanic people because they would have both Germanic and non-Germanic genes, as they do, and the same would go to the Irish. They wouldn't be "100% Germanic" like Swedes or the English, for example. I could've sworn I've heard a theory like that somewhere.

I digress now, but it seems like we are living in a Victorian age when it comes to race, the whole thing is a taboo like sex and sexuality were in the Victorian times. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of race may have become a taboo, but for good reasons, though! One cannot possibly isolate "Germanic genes", i.e. genes which are typical of the Germanic-speaking individuals and untypical in other individuals. There is, of course, a genetic variation within our species, and one should not ignore this variation out of racial bigotry. However, one should be careful not to make unscientific assumptions about the continuity of a link between a certain genotype and a certain ethnicity. The ancient Germanic peoples were perhaps, as Tacitus puts it, sui similes, but it is not true for the modern Germanic peoples: The English-speaking nations are very diverse genetically. The German and Scandinavian nations do not consist entirely of blue-eyed fair-haired men and women, either.

One may phrase your point differently - more PC, but also more in accordance with reality: The people inhabiting Ireland and Finland have among their ancestors not only people speaking Celtic and Finnish respectively, but also, to some extent, people speaking Germanic dialects (e.g. Viking immigrants). At the same time, on the other hand, Germanic dialects have been adopted by the Celtic- and Finnish-speaking people - and much more successfully so in Ireland than in Finland.

We must, however, acknowledge that for most people language is not the only constituent of ethnic identity. Even though most Irish speak English as their first and only language, I suspect that they consider themselves "Celtic". Many of them believe in some sort of ethnic continuity from the old Celtic culture until the present day. Although this belief is "unscientific", it is still a fact which must be considered by scholars. Enkyklios 08:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing though - every nation in Europe will retain, in varying degrees, genetic continuity to the aboriginal inhabitants of their lands. Culture and language is fluid but unless you have massive ethnic cleansing, it's a lot harder to change race or blood. Enzedbrit 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very enlightening and I agree with everything you said. Of course no one can assume that people represent purely one ethnicity, we all are a special mixture of our own. I find the "related ethnic groups" section in each infobox in articles about peoples very misleading because you could easily assume that everyone who belongs to that people is related to those "related" peoples. That may be a childish way think about it but people who search for knowledge from Wikipedia are far from experts. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that all 'related ethnic group' sections should be removed. Enzedbrit 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So whether 'genetically' Germanic or not. The English are a Germanic people! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

No, they're not. How do you justify this? What is your reasoning? Enzedbrit 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm...how about the fact of their language, culture, folklore, traditions, and the fact England was founded by Germanic tribes (hence England did not exist until a certain point of time called the 'Early Middle Ages' (or Dark Age to the undereducated in the field).

How can you justify they are not a Germanic people? Because of genetics? That is a very narrow, out-dated and dare I say dangerous attitude for someone to have in this day and age.

Read up on the subject and you will find that the English are ethnically Teutonic/Germanic...though genetically mixed like ALL the peoples of Europe. There are no Human races...but one 'Human Race'. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 08:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

UK

Some points that perhaps need to be debated to reach a suitable agreement for the article are on England and the dialect of the north east. Geordie is an accent and it's usually taken by those from the north east to be that of Tyneside, with other parts having their own accents such as Makem, Pitmatic, Northumberland, etc. The dialect of the north east is identifiable and is referred to by some even as a language similar to Scots. This 'language' is Northumbrian, and there are websites dedicated to preserving it and articling it. Geordie is also taken as a name for the dialect. Of course, some will be testy about this and find offence, as we're so easily offended these days aren't we, and say that they resent Tyneside speak being the designated name for the whole region's language, but that's a reality: Geordie IS taken to be a name for the dialect.

England is not as a whole, or the north east more specifically, taken to be Germanic. The Y chromosome analysis showed that in parts of England and Scotland, the Germanic ethnic imput into the British blood line is quite strong at over half of the heritage of many people in certain areas. The underlying factor of all people of Britain is that our genetic heritage is predominately ancient Briton, or aboriginal (indigenous). This of course upsets many people - Scottish and Welsh nationalists don't like it because it means that they are no different genetically to English people, and a lot of English people don't like it because they want England to be a Germanic nation of Germanic blood. I think that the truth is quite nice, although I'm not surprised that so much emphasis is placed on a Germanic heritage because even though our aboriginal heritage is much stronger, we speak a Germanic language and our Brythonic languages have all died off apart from Cornish. Although, Cumbric is being slowly revived by many.

If the north east of England/Northumbria/Bernicia, is to be considered by some contributors to this article as Germanic, then as an identifiable region of England it could be added as a subsection and debated with relevance, but blood is not going to be a linking factor, as by blood, the English just aren't Germanic. But then again, ethnicity isn't about genetics, it's about culture, language and self-identity. Enzedbrit 10:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are wrong on both counts. Northumbrian is a different dialect to Geordie as you have said. The other dialects from the area are Makem and Pitmatic. Northumbrian being the accent that is common in the larger part of 'Northumberland'. I being from Northumberland myself actually know what I am talking about. If you live in rural Northumberland, bearing in mind that the shire (as Northumberland is a shire county) is mostly rural, you would have a different dialect to someone from Newcastle, Prudhoe, or Gateshead, as the inhabitants of these places generally speak with a Geordie accent. Also no serious linguist would call all these *different* dialects Geordie. I have heard them grouped as Northumbrian dialects but not Geordie dialects. Calling them Northumbrian is correct for two reasons, one being that all these dialects come from the area that is known as Northumbria (That is Northumberland, Durham, Newcastle...etc..). And as I say, I am from the North East, and from experience people do not consider their dialect 'Geordie' unless they are from Newcastle, Gateshead, Prudhoe...etc...if they are from say Hexham they speak 'Northumbrian'.

On the other point you are mistake. England (though not the whole UK) can be (rightly) called a Germanic nation. It is true blood is not the deciding factor as you say (though it is connected in some ways), however traditions, language, laws and history are! England was of course founded by...you guessed it Germanic tribes (whether they are the predominant DNA is besides the point. These tribes were the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. You can't deny this as before the English kingdoms, England did not exist. Our language is obviously Germanic (though it has borrowed from other languages over the centuries, it is still West Germanic). Most of our common traditions, such as Yule (Yule itself is a Germanic Word, derived from the Norse Jul) are Germanic, the eating of a Christmas Ham, Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Yule Logs...etc…are all Germanic. Many of our laws come direct from Anglo-Saxon and Danish laws, though I agree many were modified by the Normans, who though descended from Norwegians are not culturally Germanic. As for self-identity, I would say that the English identify themselves with Germanic culture, albeit in a subliminal way, for example the fact that they use Anglo-Saxon to describe themselves is an indication of this. They are identifying with tribes that were Danish and Northern German and thus Germanic so on that score yes the English are a Germanic people.

And as you bring up DNA casually, then firstly I will point out that it isn't proven either way whether the Anglo-Saxon DNA is more prominent or whether the British (used in this sense as pre-Anglo-Saxon) is. Different surveys have different results, and none have actually been accepted by all experts. And for the most part many of the newer surveys still show that in the North East of England the Germanic percentage is higher than the British (thus the predominant DNA is Germanic), the main problem is that it cannot be determined whether it is Anglo-Saxon or Danish "Viking" blood, but this does not make any difference to whether the blood is Germanic. I don't care whether the Modern English have British or Anglo-Saxon blood as I am partly Norse-Gaelic and partly 'English'...thus being a mix. I just do think that the Anglo-Saxon blood is prominent as do many experts, in North Eastern England.

Either way Germanic Blood or British Blood...the English are ethnically Germanic.

Note: I am not going to lie and say I am not proud of Germanic Culture as it is obvious (especially by my username), but I do consider myself British as the UK isn't about one ethnicity or culture but about the union of many and I am proud of that also. And by the way there is a good case for Northumbria being one of the more Germanic parts, due in a large part to it's folklore especially it's creatures, that include Dvergar (Which they are actually called...they are Dwarves) and Álfar or more correctly Ælfe (as they are in Old English), who are known by the common English word Elf, but are the older and if I may say more correct type. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

• I'm also from the north east, so we're in a fix aren't we. I'm really sorry too, because you've accused me of an anti-Germanic bias, and the rest of what you said is quite way off anything sensible. Please, be a Germanic person - whatever that is - but don't rope anyone else in with it. The north east of England is completely, totally and uniquely British, which is all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. Enzedbrit 11:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What the heck, Enzedbrit! The North East of England has one of the highest percentages of Germanic blood and is one of the most culturally places in England. You obviously don't know much about the place.

As Sigurd pointed out, the folklore of Northumbria is very Germanic with the Dwarves, the Elves, the Fafnir-esque Dragon (the Worm of Bamburgh) etc. Also, almost all the place names are Germanic (Bamburgh, Falstone, Rothbury etc...). Are you even a Northumbrian? King Óðinn The Aesir 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates?

Are there any templates for ancient Germanic cultures? If not, someone (who knows what they're doing) needs to create: an overall template for ancient Germanic cultures; a template for each individual ancient Germanic culture. 66.229.160.94 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Swe-des

hm, Rex, Swede is actually (indirectly) derived from Sweo-ðeod, and thus the -de- indeed continues the thiuth element. I agree that it is not a particularly useful example, but it isn't right to shout at the anon when he is actually right. dab (ᛏ) 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you misunderstood the claim to refer to walha, but this is because you didn't read properly: we are clearly discussing the "self-designation", viz. thiuth. You should try to read more carefully before engaging in revert-wars. I suppose it is alright to revert to the anon's version then. dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He reverted me, even when I made it explicit[2] and [3]. Anon.

I'm sorry, yes I thougt it a person tried to like Swedes to Walha.My apologies Rex 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

no harm done, that's why we have talk pages :) dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes little sense, and there is at any rate no evidence to be offered for the theory that Swede is either directly or indirectly derived from the Old English term Sweoðeod for the simple reason that the form Swede appears very late in English history, with a 600 year gap between the end of the era in which Sweoðeod was used (attested in Beowulf ca. 1000 and in the Peterborough Chronicle ca. 1025) and the era in which Swede finally appears in English (the OED2 provides "1644 more victories obtained by the Sweads against the king of Denmarke."). It makes far more sense that MnE Swede and Sweden would have derived from another Germanic language in which the Swede form is indeed attested throughout this period (the OED2 provides MDutch Swede and HG Schwede), than that it would be derived from an OE term over 600 years dead. At any rate, any particular origin for MnE Swede is pure conjecture. If what we're looking for here is a good example of an ethnic group or region identified by a cognate of the ðeod moniker, this is about as bad an example as one could choose, with many better examples available, given the lack of any certainty as to where MnE Swede originates and the sheer number of alternative examples which are far more certain. --Yst 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, that, in a nutshell, is what I meant by "indirectly". I agree that the example is not very good, and this not being the Swedes article, quite irrelevant, since there are much better examples. I'm glad we've had this talk :) dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish Pan-Slavic POV

I removed the passage saying the Germanic tribes of Rugii, Silingi, Lugii and Gotones in "southwestern Poland" were probably Slavic. That's a nationalist perversion of History. Even central parts of modern Polish Republic were Slavic before 300-400 AD, as the Germanic tribe of the Burgundians, certainly Germanic, lived there and later resettled in Gallia (France). The Franks are also often presumed to be originally from the Oder and Vistula region. Slavics may consider the GDR-region (1945-1989) to be historically Slavic, as from 500 until 1000-1100 AD it was firmly Slavic, and the Bautzen region still is Sorbic-Slavic. But we are not rewriting territorial Polish history to again support the ridiculous Polish-nationalist claims upon present western Poland as "always Polish land". That's the same nonsense the Nazis engaged in. While the Baltic Old Prussians were always in the later East Prussia and certainly in the Memel Territory, they chanted in 1939 that it was "ewig, ewig, ewig deutsches Land". I reject such ahistorical perversions to fit into nationalist pictures. Germanics controlled virtually entire modern Polish territory until about 400 AD. That's a fact. That's a thing you can't deny. And from 1300 to 1945 most of modern western and northern Poland was firmly Germanically influenced once again (Hanseatic League). Basta. Magna est veritas, et praevalet.Smith2006 12:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with your point in general, but far from "fact. basta.", it cannot be ruled out that some of the tribes listed as "Germanic" by Tacitus were in fact Proto-Slavic tribes. We simply don't know, and it is only fair to mention the possibility. I wouldn't go as far as saying "probably Slavic" in any case. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

From my research, proto-Balto-Slavs originally were sourced in the southeastern areas of present day Poland, and Slovakia. Germanic people seemed to definitely be just north west of that, since Celts, Germans and Balto-Slavs seemed to split prior to that. Roman times in Europe would be quite late after much possible migratory change, as seems par for course in those times. I think both groups, Poles and Germans (Bieguny et Deutsche), may one day eventually have to learn to live with that fact their original homelands were very close to each other (and were the same people not too long before that). Nonprof. Frinkus 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons?

As the Anglo Saxon, mostly descendants of the Saxons, Angels, and Juted are a Germanic people as well, shouldn't they have a seperate bullet point in the Culture section. (Despite the fact that they descend from other peoples already listed there)? Best Regards, Signature^brendel 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Genetics

I have removed the following section as it discusses the distribution of haplogroups in the modern German population, and consequently is more relevant on the article on Germans.

The Y chromosone evidence shows that the present day German population comprises 45% R1b , 18% I, 12% R1a, 8% E3b, 8% J and 6% G haplogroups. Briefly this can be summarised as 63% (R1b & I) representing the late paleolithic inhabitants of Europe, 12% (R1a) from later intrusions (ca 6,000 to 8,000 years BP) from the Asian steppes and the balance largely from agricultural migrants from the Middle East (E3b, G and J) dating from 8,000 years BP. Hence the population mix of the Germanic tribes is complex. The above is not to be confused with the following interpretation based on the tribes known to exist in historical times.

The contributor seems to believe that the frequency of different haplogroups in modern Germany can shed light on Germanic migrations between 1300BC and 1BC, and I disagree.--Berig 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)´

"Historically linked"

Sometimes careful wording can simply be "too much". In this edit I reverted a description of the Germanic tribes as "historically linked" to Northern Europe. AFAIK, the precursors were not even called "Germanic" before living in Northern Europe, but Corded Ware culture or Proto-Indo-European, or whatever.--Berig 17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Still it is untrue to say "originating in" nobody knows where they originated or even what is meant by originating in a place. There were other people living in northern europe at the time when germanic tribes arrived there and made it their place of origin. Using this word misrepresent facts. Also we the proto-germanic tribes were already an ethnic group speaking the proto germanic language when they left central asia or wherever the PIE urheimat is. While I do see that "historically linked to" is a very weak statement it is about as strong a statement about the connection of the germanic peoples to northern europe can be stated without overstatement. How about we write "who have inhabited northern Europe in historical times"? how does that s trike you?Maunus 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To me your original statement seems like stating that Slavic peoples are historically linked to Eastern Europe, or that Bantu peoples are historically linked to Central Africa, that Austronesian peoples are historically linked to south-eastern Asia. You simply make the statements about their origins so watered down so as to be virtually without content. AFAIK, the existence of "Germanic peoples" is linked to the existence of Germanic languages. This means that we can not claim that there were any "Germanic peoples" prior to the appearance of Proto-Germanic. I think we simply disagree on the temporal scope of "Germanic". You appear to use "Germanic" as covering all the time since the Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded from the Ukraine, Central Asia, Anatolia or India, or wherever your preferred place of origin is. Your new suggestion "who have inhabited northern Europe in historical times" has to include North America, Australia and many other places in this world.--Berig 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do disagree about the temporal scope because all data points towards thinking that the different IE branches already were represented by different dialects when the first indoeeuropeans started moving out of their homeland and so proto germanic was already spoken at that time a long way from northern europe. But we also disagreee about the meaningfulness of describing a people as having "origins" in a place. Any way it is incorrect to say that the germanic people "originated in northern eeurope" because they didn't just appear there out of nothing - they obviously came from somewhere else. They didn't arrive in northern europe saying "ok, now we finally got here - now we are germanic". Other ways of stating it that are informative without misrepresenting fact might be if we write "who have historically claimed origins in", "who historically have been associated with", "who have inhabited northern europe since approximately 2000BC" "who have inhabited northern Europe since early historical times" or someother way that doesn't state them as "originating". The way it is now it reads selfcontradictory that one line says "originating in" and the next says "spread throughout europe".Maunus 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here. I strongly doubt that you should label the pre-historic wave of migrants who arrived in Northern Europe "Germanic" because we known nothing about wether they were the linguistic ancestors of "only" the Germanic languages, or the linguistic ancestors of both Germanic and some other Indo-European languages, such as Baltic, Celtic and Slavic languages. With the way of reasoning you present here, Africa is the cradle of the Germanic peoples, as all of humanity is believed to originate there ultimately.--Berig 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be the only placee I would name as "place of origin", beecause saying it about other places is simply not scientifically sound.Maunus 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And besides, the Indo-European people who migrated into Northern Europe didn't speak Germanic yet. (yes, I am a strong believer of the Germanic substrate hypothesis).