Can we consider France a Germanic country?

Jan 2014
990
Rus
#51
No way Germanic.

I think even ancient conquerors Franks were no more than German-speakin Romans. They always lived inside Roman Empire borders.
No, the Salian Franks were from much further north but due to pressure in the Roman Limes many were resettled around Toxandria, between Dordrecht and Antwerp. They were probably formed from groups of Frisii, Chaucii Ampsivarii and others who were driven out by rising sea levels, at least, the term Salii reflects the word salt as opposed to Ripuarian which alludes to the river Rhine. They were joined by other germanic peoples , their numbers expanded and they pushed further south. One of the main points of dispute within the late roman empire was the number of germanic peoples who were resettled behind the Limes and the numbers recruited to officer positions in the imperial army.
I suppose that Franks formed already inside Empire. Although, it is possible, they formed from some migrants. Thats why they were different from other Germanic tribes. Which formed outside Empire and crossed border only after.
 
Last edited:

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
#52
Genetics is a beautiful science and genetics history is a form of history. But the mods are right to ban such topics because they will automatically devolve to petty nationalism or outright racism.

There is that element too but the main problem is that it is a fast moving science and to be informed, one needs to read the peer published papers, every couple of months. I have been reading some of these studies since Jim Wilson's paper on the transition from roman britain to anglo saxon england in the year 2000 yet in 2011 Busby published a paper which reviewed many of the earlier assumptions due to the discovery of new data and wrote, "as a consequence, the existing data and tools are insufficient to make credible estimates for the age of this haplogroup, and conclusions about the timing of its origin and dispersal should be viewed with a large degree of caution." Since then, more discoveries have been made and new data is available. The only way of keeping upto date with the topic is to join a specialist genetic forum such as anthrogenica. Otherwise, dipping in and out of the subject is like picking up a copy of William Camden's 1577 publication Britannia and arguing that the history it provides is an accurate statement of events. When I was at school in the 1960s, those aspects of his history which were local to us, ie a particular hillfort, were taught as true. It wasn't until the early 1970s that archaeologists showed it couldn't possibly be the case. This is also the case with genetic research where new discoveries, new data and new ideas are published almost every month and ideas are constantly evolving.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,900
Lisbon, Portugal
#53
There is that element too but the main problem is that it is a fast moving science and to be informed, one needs to read the peer published papers, every couple of months. I have been reading some of these studies since Jim Wilson's paper on the transition from roman britain to anglo saxon england in the year 2000 yet in 2011 Busby published a paper which reviewed many of the earlier assumptions due to the discovery of new data and wrote, "as a consequence, the existing data and tools are insufficient to make credible estimates for the age of this haplogroup, and conclusions about the timing of its origin and dispersal should be viewed with a large degree of caution." Since then, more discoveries have been made and new data is available. The only way of keeping upto date with the topic is to join a specialist genetic forum such as anthrogenica. Otherwise, dipping in and out of the subject is like picking up a copy of William Camden's 1577 publication Britannia and arguing that the history it provides is an accurate statement of events. When I was at school in the 1960s, those aspects of his history which were local to us, ie a particular hillfort, were taught as true. It wasn't until the early 1970s that archaeologists showed it couldn't possibly be the case. This is also the case with genetic research where new discoveries, new data and new ideas are published almost every month and ideas are constantly evolving.
Jim Wilson's papers, besides still being relevant, are limited since they only studied haplogroups coming from either mitochondrial DNA or the Y-chromosome. This kind of genetic studies were standard 10 years ago, but nowadays they are considered outdated.
Since 2013 or so, we acquired new techniques of gathering and analyzing old genetic samples. We are know currently witnessing an "ancient DNA revolution". This new technological revolution has made it possible to sequence whole genomes from ancient bones, giving us an unanticipated opportunity to understand how humans are changing. Ancient DNA allows us to go beyond the two-dimensional map of genetic variation based on just haplogroups deriving from Y and and mitochondrial DNA. Now we can extend this to a three-dimensional map, adding time.

Around 2011, 5 peer-reviewed papers related to ancient genomics were published. In 2017, 1375 peer-reviewed papers were published. This is an unprecedented "Ancient DNA boom". This “Ancient DNA Revolution” is similarly transformative as the "Radiocarbon Testing revolution" was in the 1950s. This is something that should be more discussed in a public forum such as this one. We are missing out a lot of information by deliberately forbidding this topic of being discussed.

I know it's extremely hard to keep up with all the information, since I know many people here are not familiar with genetic science, biology and anthropology, neither most have access to peer-reviewed papers and neither the time to read them.
anthrogenica is not a reliable source - you see a lot of pseudoscience and bad analysis of scientific data in there.
You can follow certain bloggers that specialize on popularizing ancient genomics such as Anthromadness, Eurogenes, indo-european.eu, indo-european.info and gene expression - Razib Khan.

If you want a general academic book to know generally about the latest findings in this field and to what they are heading, than acquire the book Who We Are and How We Got Here , by geneticist David Reich and originally published by the University of Oxford Press in 2018.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
#54
I suppose that Franks formed already inside Empire. Although, it is possible, they formed from some migrants. Thats why they were different from other Germanic tribes. Which formed outside Empire and crossed border only after.
That's sort of true for the Salian Franks but there were Franks outside the Limes before they were allowed to settle within the empire. The term Salian is a roman term. Franks are first mentioned outside the Limes in the 3rd century. The first mention is in 257AD and a treaty is struck in 287AD which allowed them to enlist in the roman army. Later, the Salii, described as "descended from the Franks" were allowed to settle in Toxandria in 358AD.
 
Likes: Slavon

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
#55
anthrogenica is not a reliable source - you see a lot of pseudoscience and bad analysis of scientific data in there.
Yes, certainly in the comments section but it is informative as to what studies are published and often members post links to the papers. I would always urge people to read the studies for themselves rather than rely on what others have to say about them. It's the knowing what is published and how to get hold of the papers which most people find difficult.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,900
Lisbon, Portugal
#57
Yes, certainly in the comments section but it is informative as to what studies are published and often members post links to the papers. I would always urge people to read the studies for themselves rather than rely on what others have to say about them. It's the knowing what is published and how to get hold of the papers which most people find difficult.
Most people do not have the skills nor the academic requirement to understand the information and research presented in a scientific paper. That's why we have science popularizers, and science communicators.
The blogs that I sent you, are written by graduate students and scientific researchers that are professionally involved in ancient genomics.
David Reich - the author of the book in which I gave you the reference - is one of the world leading genetic scientists involved in ancient DNA studies.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
#59
Its interesting. Can you give some link?
It depends on what you are looking for. Most books on the early franks are written from the time of the salians, sometimes starting in the 4th century but mostly in the 5th century. Information on franks of the 3rd century are in books on early barbarians, such as Todd's Early Germans or James' The Franks but, information is scant. If you are simply wanting confirmation of what I have written above, just see Frank | people or Franks or the wiki section Franks - Wikipedia which has further references to the major primary gallo roman sources. The famous events in the 3rd century are the establishment of frankish bases in north africa and spain, the account of Probus in his stuggle against frankish and alemannic insurrections behind the limes and the account of Carausius, a menapian from belgic Gaul, tasked with building a fleet to counter Frankish piracy from the sea. Constantius too battled against the Franks in the late 3rd century. These were the reasons why the romans employed franks as auxilliaries and later allowed them to settle behind the Limes as laeti. It was a tactic used by the romans to relieve pressure on the Limes from outside. That's when the history of the Salii starts, in the latter half of the 4th century.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,028
Spain
#60
In this great forum I´ve read some extravagances...kind... were the vikings the first European to be in Nebraska? or.... Was George Washington a black from Niger? Bu this one is on top... France a Germanic Country? Not more than England is a Latin Country.. . Well.. in fact, most of English vocabulary come from Latin (well directly well though other languages)... for sure more than French vocabulary from German language...

To say France is Celtic....if for a heart broken because of laughing.... and Saudi Arabia is a Celtic country too....

Only because USA is one of richest country on Earth (1st EU, 2nd China 3rd USA) is not necessary people suck up one US Irish billionaire to invente the History.... not dear.... Celtic peoples were in many different places (according to Strabo) the core of Celtic tribes were in Extremadura (betweeen modern Portugal and Spain).. he didn´t write the Celtic core was in Paris, Amsterdam, New York or Berlin...

In fact, not celtic core at all... Celtic Tribes (not a language, not a tradition, not a ethnicity..nothing more ridicolous than the famous "Celtic Games".. they are as Celtic as Zulues or Thai) were a group of Metal techniques..not matches at all to one DNA as one "Einstein" wrote in this thread... forgetting than no moder country have more R1B than Spain and Portugal. Oppenheimer believes R1B is an haplogroup originated in Spain.. in any case, for sure R1b is higher rate in Spain than in Netherland, Germany, France, Switzerland or Belgium....

And not... Celtic Tribes are not matched to a place a "blood" or a "culture"....and not.. the Hippies take part in "Celtic Games" in 20th and 21st Century ARE NOT CELTS.. they are not Keltoys... not Celt at all (as not Celtic music at all). Cantabrian, Astures, Vacceos, Galician etc etc (all of themn Celtic tribes) didn´t play what the 21st Century named "Celtic music".. as Celtic as Zulu or Hotentote...

Not my dear friends.... FRANCE is not A GERMANIC COUNTRY. (Not Celtic)... France is product of history.... Pre-Roman as Keltoys, Greeks, Romans, Germanic Tribes as Franks, Burgundians.... France is producted by Centuries of evolution, interacctions...marriages, more evolutions etc etc...