>all the post roman celtic kingdoms are Completely replaced by nre Alien entities
>The new kingdoms speak a germanic language with almost no Celtic in it
>A lot pf historians think this was a peaceful process of immigration and mixing
What reason do you have to believe something like that? That a whole culture just vanishes with almost no traces but place names peacefully
It was a violent conquest, Welsh and Irish yDNA is local Celtic while Bongs are Germanic bastards from Anglos and Saxons due centuries of Ius Primae Noctis with mostly Celtic genes.
would like to see Belgian and German split up between north and south
would be more accurate representation
>would like to see Belgian and German split up between north and south
and Dutch
Garbage model
Friendly reminder that any spread of Nordic haplogroups to other parts of the world has always been entirely consensual.
I am a 3/4 English and 1/4 south/east German LARPer
>mostly Celtic genes
This was debunked. Anglos were heavily mutted with French DNA after the Normans and Plantagenets took over. Bongs these days are only like ~30% Celt
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363736520_The_Anglo-Saxon_migration_and_the_formation_of_the_early_English_gene_pool
French are genetically Gauls, therefor England became Celt again after French migrated there
Relevant
That's not what Northumberland looked like
Seethe on mcdingke
>That's not what Northumberland looked like
Yeah it is. They periodically exerted overlordship over Strathclyde and there is placename and archaeologica and geneticl evidence of fairly significant Anglo-Saxon settlement in southwestern Scotland, albeit slightly lighter than in southeastern Scotland.
Also Vikings later fucked Stratchlyde hard too and settled it heavily. They effectively destroyed Govan and you have a ton of hogback stones and hybrid Anglo-Saxon/Norse stonework and artwork left from this time.
Scotland south of the Firth of Forth is literally just an extension of northern England.
>Scotland south of the Firth of Forth is literally just an extension of northern England.
no it isnt
william wallace was fighting for celtic scotland
William Wallace's first language was French. His second would have been English. By the time of Wallace "Scot"land south of the Firth of Forth wasn't even known as 'Scotland'. In fact 'Scotia' only referred to Gaelic-speaking lands north of the Firth of Forth (a significant portion of lands north of the Firth of Forth were Norse at that time and considered such) well into the late Middle Ages.
In fact, Wallace's ancestor is believed to have accompanied William the Conqueror himself in his invasion of England in 1066.
Celtic Scotland wasn't even a cohesive thing before the Germanic invasions anyway. It was a threeway partition of Celtic Britons, Picts and Gaels who all hated each other and spent half their time enslaving, raping and attempting to annihilate one another.
BASED
That book (and others like it) should be mandatory in schools in Scotland, really. Such a deluded, brainrotten population.
I regularly ask people to actually try defining Scottish for me. Define what makes someone Scottish.
They can literally never answer. Because the only thing that they look to to perceive someone as 'Scottish' is speaking English in a certain geographic range of accents which are perceived as 'Scottish' but which are in fact just archaic, convervative English accents quite similar to the kind of traditional accents you'll hear in the rural Netherlands and Frisian regions.
>(and others like it)
reccomend me some
It's amazing how one book can BTFO the identity of an entire nation. scotlands national foundations are built on fiction, on made up myths and fiction books, even now scots will say that the english have no national epic and then spout the ossian as scotland's claim to fame
>certain geographic range of accents which are perceived as 'Scottish' but which are in fact just archaic, convervative English accents quite similar to the kind of traditional accents you'll hear in the rural Netherlands and Frisian regions.
kek, funny how shows and books depicting highlanders show them with scottish accents saying aye and bonnie when highland chiefs were all educated in london and spoke like the english upper classes. its a joke nation, a complete fucking fiction and a travesty. a bloke whose ancestors would have been jacobite hating, calvinist presbyterians who saw the english as protestant allies and the highlanders as catholic papist savages will now put on a kilt, larp as a highlander and call himself a "gael". what a joke
It's actually quite insidious. The amount of historical whitewashing and terminology twisting and 'reappraisals' that go on in order to prop up this ethnoLARP.
You need to remember kids in Scotland are being twisted and corrupted by this all the time. Every generation.
It's an institutionalized and stomachchurning form of abuse. I'm shocked it's been allowed to go on for so long.
Where's the border at which you stop calling an ethnicity a LARP and consider it a real ethnicity?
>Where's the border at which you stop calling an ethnicity a LARP and consider it a real ethnicity?
If they at least speak the language (or modern descendant of an older stage of that language) of the group they're claiming to be, that's good enough for me.
And I'm not talking about knowing a few phrases in it. I mean it being your main language, the language you converse in most easily and fluently.
I wouldn't call Turks a LARP, for example. Because while they may have a lot of admixture with non-Turkic groups, they speak a Turkic language.
And that's basically always been what Turkic meant. It's an ethnolinguistic term for speakers of Turkic languages.
Same with Germanic. Celtic. Slavic etc. etc.
So are Bulgarians all larpers then?
They're originally thracians/turks who speak a slavic language.
>So are Bulgarians all larpers then?
Yes. Absolutely. Are you suggesting Bulgarians are, in fact, Turkic nomadic warriors from the Steppe?
Do you think North Macedonians are also Ancient Greeks? Do you think French people are Germanic Franks?
>Do you think North Macedonians are also Ancient Greeks?
no, they are ancient Macedonians
Macedonians=/=greeks
>They're originally thracians/turks who speak a slavic language.
Are they? Have you ever looked at Bulgarians on a PCA? Have you ever checked their genetic distance calculator?
I've never seen anyone claim Bulgarians are anything but South Slavs.
Even Wikipedia labels them as South Slavic ethnic group.
>I've never seen anyone claim Bulgarians are anything but South Slavs.
Bulgarian comes from Bulgar, which is the name of the turkic tribe that founded the nation first and who they claim descent from.
Fair enough, I thought you were one of those idiots who would instantly backtrack or start coping the moment the argument involved a culture that isn't tied to any other existing culture like the scots are
>Bulgarian comes from Bulgar, which is the name of the turkic tribe that founded the nation first and who they claim descent from.
Uhuh. And yet they speak a South Slavic language and cluster with other South Slavs genetically.
Just like Scottish people (despite being named after a Celtic people) speak a West Germanic language and cluster with other Germanic peoples genetically.
Almost like... they're BOTH ethnoLARPs or something, hmm?
I mean bulgarian identity is older than the latter half of the 19th century
Yes, that was my question to you and you or someone else answered it, do you need anything else from me?
I answered it. I was just elaborating. And no I don't need anything else from you. Where are you from anyway?
You ended with a question mark so I thought you were fishing for a reply
I'm from Estonia, we wuz wikings and Rurik was a finn, etc.
>I thought you were one of those idiots who would instantly backtrack or start coping the moment the argument involved a culture that isn't tied to any other existing culture like the scots are
EthnoLARPs are nothing new under the Sun. It's not unique to the northern English people of "Scot"land. There are dozens of examples in Europe alone of ethnoLARPs.
It's cringe when 'North Macedonians' do it. It's cringe when the 'Scottish' do it. It's cringe when the various Romance-speaking peoples of Iberia do it.
It deserves to be called out and mocked relentlessly wherever it occurs.
The most incredulous thing is how nobody calls them out on it
People will happily make fun of mexicans larping as either aztecs or pure castillian spaniards, or north macedonians larping as alexander the great, or even albanians larping as illyrians, but for some reason scotland is this nation you can't talk about and we have to all accept that their larp culture of kilts and tartan and gaelic is real and not just a fake culture
I mean just look at this shit
>In the 1820s, as part of the Romantic revival, tartan and the kilt were adopted by members of the social elite, not just in Scotland, but across Europe.[5][6] The international craze for tartan, and for idealising a romanticised Highlands, was set off by the Ossian cycle published by Scottish poet James Macpherson's in 1761-2.[7][8] Sir Walter Scott's Waverley novels further helped popularise select aspects of Scottish life and history and he founded the Celtic Society of Edinburgh in 1820.[9] He staged the royal Visit of King George IV to Scotland in 1822 and the king's wearing of tartan. George IV was the first reigning monarch to visit Scotland in 171 years.[9] Scott and the Celtic Society urged Scots to attend festivities "all plaided and plumed in their tartan array".[10] One contemporary writer sarcastically described the pomp that surrounded the celebrations as "Sir Walter's Celtified Pageantry".[11][12] Nevertheless, the result was a massive upsurge in demand for kilts and tartans that could not be met by the Scottish linen industry.[13]
>George IV was the first reigning monarch to visit Scotland in 171 years
kek
I've never worn a tartan skirt, and never will. Can you imagine if Scandinavians all wore horned helmets to weddings and awards ceremonies? People would be cringing hard and laughing hysterically.
and the worst thing about it is that actual history and culture is being destroyed and forgotten about in favour of a made up LARP that never existed
i genuinely believe that this romanticist LARP has done more damage to the history of the british isles than anything else. the fact that searching up "lowland scottish culture" on google images will get you hundreds of images of people wearing kilts is proof enough
It's just sad. It's terribly sad. But it won't last long. It's such a vapid, incoherent mess, as fragile as a house of cards.
It's already beginning to collapse in upon itself.
I admire your optimism but i doubt it. Look at how Ukrainian LARP culture is being promoted right now-if a nationalist government actually took power in the UK you'd see the cia funding scotish nationalism and furthering their LARP identity just like they're doing in the ukraine
Hmm, yeah. I guess.
I always thought of Scotland like Norway and England like Sweden. Same Paternally but overtime separate. Modern Scots took it a step further. Even Iberians like Spaniards and Portuguese are a great example of one group of people becoming two over time. Americans and Canadians also from the same original British settler stock, one sided with Washington and the other Britain. Australia and New Zealand both coming from Anglo settlers but split. Even Wales has its nationalist but almost always actual speakers. You could make a case that they’re more separated then the Scots yet don’t act the same as them still.
Luckily there were some who called these LARPers out on it
>Lord Macaulay, son of an Argyll family, wrote of the Romantic reinvention of Highland customs:
>Soon the vulgar imagination was so completely occupied by plaids, targets, and claymores, that, by most Englishmen, Scotchman and Highlander were regarded as synonymous words. Few people seemed to be aware that, at no remote period, a Macdonald or a Macgregor in his tartan was to a citizen of Edinburgh or Glasgow what an Indian hunter in his war paint is to an inhabitant of Philadelphia or Boston. Artists and actors represented Bruce and Douglas in striped petticoats. They might as well have represented Washington brandishing a tomahawk, and girt with a string of scalps.[14]
There was this guy too:
>Colonel Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, proved to his own satisfaction that "the truis" was an older dress than kilts.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trews
If you're going to LARP as a Celt, you may as well wear 'braccae'. Which is closer to what the actual historical Celts themselves wore.
>Soon the vulgar imagination was so completely occupied by plaids, targets, and claymores, that, by most Englishmen, Scotchman and Highlander were regarded as synonymous words. Few people seemed to be aware that, at no remote period, a Macdonald or a Macgregor in his tartan was to a citizen of Edinburgh or Glasgow what an Indian hunter in his war paint is to an inhabitant of Philadelphia or Boston. Artists and actors represented Bruce and Douglas in striped petticoats. They might as well have represented Washington brandishing a tomahawk, and girt with a string of scalps
Unbelievably based.
It's funny how this is the actual insidious, real, evil kind of cultural appropriation that leftists like to hate on, which is a group of people colonizing and ethnociding another and adopting their name and cultural facets for themselves as they continue to stamp out their culture and lifestyle.
and yet it's completely ignored by them when it comes to Scotland.
At this point Scotland should just be renamed Northern England.
Blame Hollywood. The Scottish have a PR machine almost as powerful as the israelites. They were the main proponents of british colonialism and expansionism, but thanks to movies like Braveheart, they managed to delude everyone into thinking they were victims of English imperialism.
>They were the main proponents of british colonialism and expansionism
Peak autism
IV was the first reigning monarch to visit Scotland in 171 years
No way
Actual lol
>>A lot pf historians think this was a peaceful process of immigration and mixing
Nobody thinks that. They think it was a violent destruction of local elites and their replacement.
There is a written tradition, going back to the early sixth century, that says the first Anglo-Saxons in Britain were mercenaries who mutinied against their British employers and began seizing the island by force. The archaeology seems to say something quite different. The earliest Saxon cemeteries, dating to the mid fifth century and found in the Thames Valley and Essex, seem to be of ordinary farmers. These are poor people, buried without weapons. Their settlements are undefended, and they seem to have existed side-by-side with equally undefended settlements of ordinary Romano-British farmers. There is also considerable evidence for contact between the two peoples: hundreds of British place names survived, the genetics seems to show substantial intermarriage, many old community boundaries were maintained. The culture we call Anglo-Saxon seems to have emerged gradually from the mixing of British and barbarian elements, and not until nearly a century later do we have much evidence for Anglo-Saxon warriors, especially warrior aristocrats
Should be noted, there is no scholarly consensus for basically everything to do with the period. 'The end of Roman Britain' more or less advocates for the exact opposite stance, that the incoming peoples were extremely militarized, small in number and mingled with the local population as to make the identification of them by grave goods, and even genetic testing alone impossible. There are essentially two, massive and completely different camps in histography of the period. The Germanists and the Romanists.
>There is also considerable evidence for contact between the two peoples: hundreds of British place names survived,
A thousand and four hundred years from now, someone like yourself is going to make the same argument that the conquest of Australia was a peaceful process of trade and exchange between the aborigines and English because the English kept names like Cuckatoo, Wagga Wagga, and Diggeridoo after wiping out the abos and pushing the remaining survivors into reserves. It will be just equally foolish.
>The earliest Saxon cemeteries, dating to the mid fifth century and found in the Thames Valley and Essex, seem to be of ordinary farmers.
That doesn't say much really, cemeteries of that kind were likely something that were only made after an area had been already conquered and the way cleared for settlement.
> Their settlements are undefended
Probably because the threats had been driven off already
>and they seem to have existed side-by-side with equally undefended settlements of ordinary Romano-British farmers
And how do we know that they existed side by side? And even if they did, that the remaining Romano-britons were not reduced to thrall status?
>hundreds of British place names survived,
Plenty of places in North America and Australia still have their native place names too, that doesn't tell anything
>the genetics seems to show substantial intermarriage,
Intermarriage or rape?
>many old community boundaries were maintained. The culture we call Anglo-Saxon seems to have emerged gradually from the mixing of British and barbarian elements, and not until nearly a century later do we have much evidence for Anglo-Saxon warriors, especially warrior aristocrats
Not a trace of Celtic or Romano British elements survived
they try to hide fact that Britain was struck by the comet that ended western world and caused dark ages
funny enough there are also stories of anglosaxons landing near Elbe from Britain and creating their new country like century later
from where these anglo saxons come originally?
>>The new kingdoms speak a germanic language with almost no Celtic in it
This is a very important point.
The vikings conquered a very large portion of Britain. Old Norse has had a rather large impact on English as a result.
The Normans conquered all of England. French has had a rather large impact on English as a result.
Where the hell is the Brythonic influence on English? The average English speaker knows 25,000 to 30,000 words by the time they reach middle age, but the number of words in English that are Brythonic in origin are at most in the triple digits, and I'd wager the average person would know half that.
they always spoke what you call anglosaxon
the ruling militarized elite that come and taken over were speaking brythonic
the digits speak
fug, that would explain this
>According to the Res gestae saxonicae by tenth century chronicler Widukind of Corvey, the Saxons had arrived from Britannia at the coast of Land Hadeln in the Elbe-Weser Triangle, called by the Merovingian rulers of Francia to support the conquest of Thuringian kingdom, a seeming reversal of the English origin myth where Saxon tribes from the region, under the leadership of legendary brothers Hengist and Horsa, invade post-Roman Britannia.
look like slavs
>anglosaxes were slavic guestworkers all along
next time you will tell me that vikings were slavic and baltic pirates
Artist ?
it's quite impressive how they try to explain it away
I know this is on >reddit but someone really wrote hundreds of words trying to explain why it's perfectly normal for a non violent conqueror to barely adopt any words of a more advanced civilization
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aetf9p/comment/edtazp0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
>Celtic Britain.
>More advanced.
They were Romanized.
But they got cutoff from Rome and with its institutions declining, dwindled back into barbarity.
They're not like Gallo-Romans who maintained their Romaness to the point that the Franks got a Romantic language.
>dwindled back into barbarity
I disagree. A lot of this perception is outdated archaeology written on a lot of Victorian assumption that the Britons (Welsh) just sucked and the Anglo Saxons (English) were giggachads who took over. Archaeology today indicates something really different.
Romano British had better written Latin then most of Europe at this point (that fell to barbarians) to the point they had colourful linguistic word play in their monuments. Literacy was not confined to the monastery elite of this period -- check out the Caldey Stone. Many of these stones litter Britain and were often written in complex Latin verse with hidden meanings and the ability to read backward
Hadrian's wall was being garrisoned and expanded upon, as were cities in places like York which included production increase (such as pottery). They also traded with and communicated with the Byzantines during the Justinian period. The Byzantines would not send emissaries half way around the known world to a country they thought had become a backwater. They came to a economically independent group which displays that the East was interested in the West. They were looking for descents of Romans and found them - who know the same languages, rituals, customs and ideas etc.
There were dozens of monastic monasteries during this Dark Age which produced learned monks like Gildas who often wrote in sophisticated flowery Latin for an equally sophisticated audience (fellow Britons) as his works are filled with classical references. The Irish monks told the Pope Gregory the Great to check out his works. These weren't just isolated monks hidden away in damp ruined chapels. It indicates these people had scholars who were in touch with philosophy and religious discussion of their time period and in contact with the rest of the world.
The Romano British might have devolved into petty Kingdoms during this period (as did the whole west empire) but they didn't revert to pre-Roman Britain.
There were thousands of these stones like the Caldey Stone across Britain written in classical Latin during the Dark Age period which indicates, even in the deepest dark waters. This implies there is a large class and numbers of people to make setting up these stones a thing to begin with.
What makes this interesting is the Romano British are practically the only group left in west Europe who carry on writing very high level literacy Latin during this period. It might be because the Britons didn't speak a Romance tongue and as a result less linguistic interference. This means Britons were learning Latin by the book (even in the Dark Age Britain).
in truth it was never conquered by so called roman empire because roman empire never existed
it was anglo saxon speaking country destroyed by a comet and then taken over by brythonic speaking military elites from continental Bretonia
welsh were remnants of Phoenicians colonies, same for irish who were connected to Iberians and Egyptians
best part of celtic nationalism is that you have no idea to tell if this is a real belief or not
even if they were declining back into barbarism the short time since the romans leftg when the saxons started to "peacefully immigrate" that there should have been plenty of words for a culture immigrating from the forests of germania to adopt
>best part of celtic nationalism is that you have no idea to tell if this is a real belief or not
its truth mate
One interesting word that comes to English from Brythonic is "cwm," the name of a type of valley. The word uses w as a vowel.
There's very little Gaulish influence on French too, which is kind of shocking considering the Frankish influence on French.
The conclusions we can draw are that Celtic languages probably weren't particularly different from either Germanic or Italic languages, particularly in these earlier stages.
The further back you go the more similar all these languages become until they are just the same language, Proto-Indo-European.
They hadn't really been separate languages for such a long time before they began colliding together again and they probably still remained in a language contact zone through trade and other interactions.
There's also the very realistic scenario that regions that were ruled by Celtic elites and dynasties may well not have been Celtic-speaking among the common population which may have consisted largely of slaves and conquered peoples from other ethnolinguistic groups.
There's very little Gaulish influence on French too, which is kind of shocking considering the Frankish influence on French
Well, the French descend from Frankish tribes (as well as other Germanic tribes like the Burgundians), since war and famine drove much of the previous inhabitants towards the more populated south. I think seeing influence on Occitan would be more applicable here.
The french are more gaulish than frankish
>roman celtic
didnt we kick those little moor guys asses and send them back to shitally
I guarantee you most of this "replacement" was decades of people moving into empty areas and the original inhabitants looking on in the distance going "just ain't what it used to be"
You need to remember the bulk of the inhabitants of Britain at the time had just spent 400 years as second class slave caste under Roman rule. The Anglo-Saxon migrations would have been from a people ironically more similar to the British commoners than their Roman overlords and the Roman colonists they brought to Britain had been.
The Germanic peoples had presence in Britain since Roman times, invited in as foederati and serving as mercenaries and pacifiers.
The original idea was probably to divide and conquer the British population, but slowly the Celtic Briton and Germanic populations just mingled and merged and a common language and culture developed.
As Rome began to collapse, it would have become increasingly difficult to pacify subject populations and they would have begun overthrowing and conquering the conquerors.
A bunch of petty, tribal kingdoms would have sprung up in the wake of Roman collapse and withdrawal. The lines would have become increasingly blurred as populations collided and mixed and mingled to the point where the only clear divide between populations was language and cultures, and even that wasn't always necessarily a dividing factor as English-speaking kingdoms and tribes often allied with British-speaking ones against other English-speaking kingdoms and vice versa.
This. Saxons were the original blacks and Mexicans.
It wasn’t totally peaceful. I don’t know who thinks that, but the Anglo-Saxons clearly took the land by force. But after that, it wasn’t a genocide. It was clearly a mixing and not even one by rape. A recent study showed both men and women of totally Briton heritage being buried with the same honors as pure Anglo-Saxons. Then it proved Englishmen can have up to 57% Briton DNA still if you go north and west (although they’re more likely to have 1/3 or under).
Why did they stop speaking Brythonic? Look at the Scots and the Irish. Why did they adopt English? It’s the same thing.
>Look at the Scots and the Irish. Why did they adopt English?
Because they heavily mixed with English people through various colonizations and the remnant populations adopted the English language.
>A recent study showed both men and women of totally Briton heritage being buried with the same honors as pure Anglo-Saxons
People didn't have these stringent concepts of race and ancestry like some autistic people seem to today.
People were pragmatic, concerned with day-to-day survival back then. The aim was to spread your language and culture to conquered tribes and absorb them.
You see this in practically every European culture with recorded history, concerted efforts to 'integrate' foreigners into their genealogical schemes and pretend they descended from Woden or Milesians or whoever the fuck else was considered the mythological ancestor of a people.
Assimilation happened back then just as it does today, although it was more permanent since people didn't have elaborate, recorded genealogies and DNA tests.
People need to stop being so fucking autistic about this stuff.
England was made English. Lowland Scotland was made English. Then the rest of the British Isles was eventually made English.
Same way it was made Celtic and before that whatever type of Indo-European existed there before the Celtic migrations and invasions.
>The aim was to spread your language and culture to conquered tribes and absorb them.
I seem to remember a while back reading that some Germanic tribes had a taxation system which sort of encouraged conquered commoners to adopt the Germanic tongue and customs.
I think there was added tax for people who spoke a foreign language or something.
Continental Germanic tribes (or some of them) seemed to have a threeway partition of society. I forget the terms for them, but basically it was nobles/warriors/commoners or something.
Commoners often consisted of largely assimilated populations who had been conquered, but they didn't have any less status or legal worth than commoners of Germanic descent.
>"It's almost as if there are two England's, and one of them is called Scotland" - some historian from Oxford in the 1800s
>Scots terms were included in the English Dialect Dictionary, edited by Joseph Wright.
>Wright himself rejected the argument that Scots was a separate language, saying that this was a "quite modern mistake".
Also much of the early Anglo-Saxonism and early proponents of the idea and concept were from the Lowlands. 🙂
None of you "complete conquest, extermination and replacement" fucks have yet explained to me why the early kings of Wessex had Celtic names.
>complete conquest, extermination and replacement
Nobody in this thread has claimed that happened.
>have yet explained to me why the early kings of Wessex had Celtic names.
Is an Irish person with a Hebrew or English name israeli or English?
why are you guys so dissingious?
just because you don't believe in the melting pot shit you don't believe it was some 20th century level of genocide
>be a germanic barbarian who was born in a barn
>invade Britain
>kill local Celt chieftain
>take his ginger daughters as concubines
>move to abandoned Roman villa with a pool
It was a good time for everyone, including the captured women who got to feel the power of BGC.
>muh ginger c*lt0ids
You know most Norse gods had red hair, right? Odin, Thor etc.
Insular Celtic peoples weren't any more redheaded than Scandinavians. In fact redhaired gods were common all throughout Indo-European mythologies.
Perkunas (cognate of Thor and Taranis) had red hair too. Lightning bolt also.
Both Celts and Germanic peoples are regularly described as blond and redhaired. So are Scythians, Slavs, Thracians and many other northern barbarian peoples.
Even Aphrodite the patron goddess of prostitution born in Cyprus had reddish hair and shes from Cyprus. The Ginger pussy is powerful.
I like blonde hair. I like red hair. I like brown hair. I like black hair. You find all these hair colors quite commonly all throughout northern and eastern Europe.
It's all good.
What other hair colors are there?
>What other hair colors are there?
I suppose artificial ones like purple, blue, green etc. I mean a lot of the blonde and red hair in Europe is itself artifical and achieved through hair dye.
This was also common historically.
Wouldn’t be surprised if yellow, orange or purples eyes becomes a permanent thing if a mutation occurs.
God bros I want so badly to RETVRN
The anglo saxons were the evil counterpart of the franks.
Don't a majority of men in England have "British" y-dna markers instead of Germanic ones and that percentage increases as you go further north and west? The conquest on Bongland was a mostly Celtic/British population assimilating into the invader culture. Then again with Normans.
>Don't a majority of men in England have "British" y-dna markers instead of Germanic ones
No. Over half of their Y-DNA is Germanic and a further 20% or something is Romance (R1b-U152 and R1b-DF27).
Same with Lowland Scotland.
I would be willing to wager the brythonic DNA is, for the most part, from the influx of Welsh people over the span of 600 years into England after their subjugation to the Normans and the easing of punitive edicts against them.
a language is a dialect with an army
A tradition is just a socially accepted LARP
No, it's a language.
Why would you be willing to bet that? There are literal Celtic Britons buried alongside Anglo-Saxons in their graveyards clothed in the same style and with the same status and trinkets.
There are Anglo-Saxon kings with Brittonic names. Caedmon's Hymn is from a young stableherd who seems to, himself, be Brittonic descent judging by his name, but Bede simply refers to him as speaking 'his native tongue' (Old English).
you believe there is two too many north germanic languages in europe don't you?
There's also heavy intermarriage between Anglo-Saxon royal families and Celtic Britons and Gaels and others during the recorded period.
Pictish kings become increasingly Englishized as time goes on and Pictish kings married Northumbrian princesses.
You see Pictish kings with Anglo-Saxon names, the introduction of systems like thanedoms inherited from Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Saxon bishops in Pictish territories.
Well, in reality, there are only 2 living North Germanic languages. Scandinavian and Icelandic. Yes.
Why is it such a big deal? Scandinavia is obviously a dialect continuum, the fact that there are 3 tribal and political divides between Scandinavians doesn't change that.
Historically, Old Norse was literally called 'The Danish Tongue' in Old Norse itself and a synonym for Norse was Dane in that same period.
Thanks doc
Why did anglos get so much land?
Jutes so little
The entirety of the Angle population moved to Britain.
That's why there are Saxons and Jutes on the continent still, but England is is the only land that claims descent from the Angles.
there are too many examples of anglo-saxon royalty with brythonic names for it to be pure conquest
I figure it's more like this:
>by the time the romans pack up and leave the upper classes are nearly-entirely latinized, and there is no strong martial culture because of hundreds of years of being defended by soldiers from elsewhere in the empire
>no longer being able to defend themselves, they fall prey to raids from the irish, picts, and germanics
>either way local lords begin to invite groups like the angles, saxons, and jutes to act as foederati, giving them land in exchange for protection
>being a powerful military force, the germanic groups become more socially prominent, getting more land and wealth, and marrying into local nobility in many areas
>some areas and lords, however, resist this take-over by pagans, leading to the various conflicts in during which the arthur legend arose (this being around the year 500 or so)
>either way eventually the entire east coast is under the control of families which speak anglo-saxon, although most of them likely had brythonic blood as well
how does that explain the non-celticness of old english?
Anon you do realise Scottish English never had any Celtic words in it yet still retained Celtic namea among the population.
it doesn't and it doesn't attempt to
how should I fucking know why there are so few british words? maybe british had really fallen out of fashion among the upper classes outside of names. maybe there are more than we suspect but linguists aren't categorizing them right. maybe british had other influences on english outside of vocabulary.
either way the only thing which I personally will state that I believe is certain is that there was no pure conquest, no genocide, nothing like bede describes and has been popular history ever since.
>non-celticness
There's evidence to suggest Brythonic has a strong influence on Old English. There is even native Briton grammar in modern English. This mostly revolves around structure on how things are said. It implies there was integration with Britons over genocide which makes sense considering modern DNA results.
>brythonic
It Cymric you fucking chud
>too many examples of anglo-saxon royalty with brythonic names
You mean a total of 3 kings, which the chronicles unreliably speak about, and the principal one that fuels this theory of peaceful co-existence and intermarriage, Cerdic, we're note even sure he actually existed.
Anyways, you seem to have not considered the possibility that it's simply a phonetic coincidence these names are similar. Take the last name Barry, a shortening of Barrington/Barring/Baring, also found today in Britanny, Normandy, and Ireland INDEPENDENTLY of its English origins. This name is also one of the most common last names in West Africa. Are we going to argue that the Fula people of West Africa are related to the British Isles now because we found 1 king whose name might be kinda similar to the name Cerdric?
No, once again we're faced with the fact that the English are a Germanic people that wiped out the Britons, whom they called, the Wealh (Welsh), and renamed everything after themselves, and replaced the existing culture with their own: New gods, new laws, new government, new language, new clothes, new architecture.
>how should I fucking know why there are so few british words?
Thank you for admitting this. The issue is settled. The historical record, the DNA evidence, the language, all points to a near total replacement of the pre-existing population. If it had been a peaceful migration, the highest levels of intermingling between Briton and Anglo-Saxons would have been in Kent, Suffolk, and Norfolk where landfall was first made and they would have begun marrying into the local population. Instead, what we find is that the English of these areas have the lowest levels of shared relations with the Welsh and Cornish peoples.
>To Aetius, thrice consul: the groans of the Britons. The barbarians drive us to the sea, the sea drives us to the barbarians; between these two means of death, we are either killed or drowned.
kek. It do be like that.
Cassandra is having ANOTHER meltdown because someone mentioned kilts
how does it feel knowing that your entire """""culture""""" is a cringe larp invented in the 19th century?
You will never have a womb
>You will never be in a clan
>You will never be a Jacobite
>You will never be Celtic
>You will never be independent
>You will always speak English
>You will always have an Anglo culture
>You will always sing God Save the Queen
>You will always be an ethnic Fleming
>You will always be British
You will always have autism and post about Scotland until the day you die
You will never have a real culture
There are lots of people who make fun of your little larp. Including trevor roper himself, whose book completely BTFO'd your entire nation
>What reason do you have to believe something like that?
The people financing said lot of historians' research want them to. Best and most common reason a historian has to believe anything through all of history.
>Wessex
>Sussex
>Essex
Where's Norsex?
Right next to West Anglia
Thanks doc
Didn’t that recent British dna study show that 100% Celtic people were sometimes found to be given Germanic burials? To me this means there was both war and peaceful assimilation.
How different could celts and Germanics have been anyway?
Yes. It was shown over the course of a couple hundred years the earlier Germanic migrations had Britons adopt these fashions and customs anyway. So it's likely when further migration / invasion happened these people were easy to assimilate as they already looked and possible spoke the part on the eastern part of England.
>English people actually think they speak a germanic language rather than a mutt germano-latin creole
The most hilarious part in all of this
this is what happens when people are bullied relentlessly by the people they grew up around. in england they tend to troon out but in scotland they become these strange larpers who try to act as they think a proper briton should act - a mincing caricature of an englishman.
all his ressentiment curdles into a desperate need to 'refute' scotland and scottish people, to claw back some power over the nasty neds who made his life miserable. the irony is that he affirms some sort of scottish exceptionalism in holding scotland to a standard he would never think to hold another country. as a scot, like it or not, he can't help but centre his world around scotland
Not him or anyone you responded to, but I fail to see the point of this person's argument. Is Scotland an arbitrary creation of the Middle Ages? Definitely. Did a Gaelic ruling class take over the Picts, assimilating them? Yep. Did said ruling class eventually become Normanized and then Anglicized by all of the people who were immigrating to the south (which already had Anglo regions). Yes.
But this is the case for Europe in general, including England, so it all around seems very stupid. You can "deboonk" all of Europe. Also I'm an Amerimutt whose paternal ancestors come from Scotland.
retards
People are happy to call out an ahistorical LARP. If any other group of people did this then you'd make fun of them but for some reason when scotland does it it's ok. you will laugh at north macedonians dressing up as ancient greeks and pretending to be alexander the great but say nothing when scots dress up as kilts (invented by an englishman) and LARP as highlanders
>If any other group of people did this then you'd make fun of them
many, many other groups of people do this, on every continent with varying degrees of levity. to you its unremarkable because you are a parochial jocky bumpkin whose entire world ends at the english border - you just don't notice.
>say nothing when scots dress up as kilts (invented by an englishman)
we've been through this before, mate. the kilt you're speaking about was an adaptation of the older gaelic garment, for use in an industrial setting iirc. the older kilt was belted across the body. in fact i think we've been through this upwards of five times
as for larping as highlanders, i have ancestors from the highlands who migrated into the cities in the 19th c., same as most scots these days. not it matters
>many, many other groups of people do this, on every continent with varying degrees of levity. to you its unremarkable because you are a parochial jocky bumpkin whose entire world ends at the english border - you just don't notice.
No they don't, and those who do are made fun of
>we've been through this before, mate. the kilt you're speaking about was an adaptation of the older gaelic garment, for use in an industrial setting iirc. the older kilt was belted across the body. in fact i think we've been through this upwards of five times
Bullshit
The great kilt was simply a large piece of fabric that was laid around the body severals in such a way that in hung down, and had more in common with a tunic than with a skirt. It's completely different from the kilt that scots wear nowadays which is essentially a skirt
>muh kilts are traditional
No they aren't
Lowland scots saw the highlanders as degenerate, savage papists and thought of the kilts as unmanly. Those are what actual lowland scots thought about muh highlanders before your romanticist LARP fetish of them, which was brought on by a fake epic that you will no doubt try to defend as valid
it's an ahistorical, fake culture, with no basis in reality, and in its essence it destroys actual, genuine folk culture
>it destroys actual, genuine folk culture
He says as he forces the notion that southern scots are just regular englishmen
you're confusing two different people, retard
and lowland scots always saw themselves as closer to englishmen than they did highlanders
>lowland scots always saw themselves as closer to englishmen than they did highlanders
So you're just salty because they no longer do?
No, I will happily expose their LARP identity though
It's a pretty small LARP compared to most of Europe thinking they're the chosen ones of some desert nomad god though
>It's a pretty small LARP compared to most of Europe thinking they're the chosen ones of some desert nomad god though
What are you talking about?
Or do you think that highland scots weren't christian?
oh no no no
Scots are dressing up as a culture they themselves invented or someone else invented for them
Macedonians are LARPing as someone they have never been and are only connected to geographically.
If you fail to see the difference between those two you might be retarded.
the odd thing is that i believe the wider point he tries to force in every scotland thread is the diminution or negation of lowland scottish culture in favour of a bastardised representation of the gaelic culture.
i suspect this is the same guy who posts apologetic blocks in threads about the scots language.
I think a lot of historians try and justify their employment by taking already established obvious facts and bullshitting their way to a new and incorrect interpretation
This would all be solved if you called them Anglo-Celts instead of Anglo-Saxons. Also call English a geramnic-Latin language
The English are mutts because they live on the most desirable land in Europe. Everyone wanted a piece of it
>England
>the most desirable land in Europe
I laughed
England is the favored piece of land to dominate the British isles. Dominating the British isles is as comfy as it gets in Europe.
England was so shit William the conqueror didn't even want to give it to his first son.
I may be the exception, but I don't really see how ruling a bunch of sheepfuckers who hate each-other for fucking sheep is comfy.
>he says in english
France lost
Well, yeah, they were the last african country to lose the FIFA world cup this year