How much did "Invaders" really impact native populations?

Apr 2017
20
Canada
So many peoples have these stories about how they descend from some invading tribe or nation, that usually conquered, displaced, and replaced a native population. How true is that?

What I mean is, are Europeans generally still the same peoples that have lived on their modern territories by other names, rather than so-called invaders?

For example:
I have read on here that many believe that the majority of English people do not descend from the actual Anglo-Saxons rather the native island tribes, that they joined the Anglo-Saxon culture.

South Slavs are also thought by some to be far more native Thraco-Illyrian than Slavonic.

Spaniards and Portuguese speak italic languages but their heritage is probably native Iberian.

Hungarians believe themselves descendants of nomadic tribes, but they seem to be far more similar to their neighbours.

Did these "invaders" just give more a cultural/linguistic exchange than an actual genetic/ethnic one?
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,767
Portugal
Spaniards and Portuguese speak italic languages but their heritage is probably native Iberian.
Just a small note.

When you use the word “Iberian” for the Ancient period you are not talking about the population of the Iberian Peninsula, but about the tribes that inhabited the South, South-East, and East of the Iberian Peninsula and that had a different culture than the ones that inhabited the “Meseta” (Central part) or the Atlantic Coast.

Edit:

Answering to your question, in a generic manner, it is quite rare in history to see the conquerors killing all the previous inhabitants of their conquests. In time the populations usually merge.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
20
Canada
Just a small note.

When you use the word “Iberian” for the Ancient period you are not talking about the population of the Iberian Peninsula, but about the tribes that inhabited the South, South-East, and East of the Iberian Peninsula and that had a different culture than the ones that inhabited the “Meseta” (Central part) or the Atlantic Coast.
I know there were a few different tribes/cultures on the peninsula; Iberians, Celt-Iberians, were Lustianians Iberian or their own thing? I'm not sure.

Even so.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,767
Portugal
I know there were a few different tribes/cultures on the peninsula; Iberians, Celt-Iberians, were Lustianians Iberian or their own thing? I'm not sure.
The Lusitanians were not Iberians, the most usual theory is that they were a Indo-European tribe that came to the Iberian Peninsula previously to the Celts. They could be related with the Vettones. The Celtiberians was a Roman designation to several peoples. And in the Atlantic coast there is not a consensus if the tribes were all Celtic/”Celtizied”.

I edited my previous post to be more on theme.
 

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
8,129
Cornwall
The OP is basically correct in idea - probably Turkey is another good example, although that usually causes upset either way.

But I wouldn't actually under-estimate the volume of immigration for people looking for new hope or power in a 'brave new world'. And soldiers tend to hang around don't they? Romans, berbers, slavs, North Africans.

Iberia is an immensely complicated case because of the demographic trauma from the Carthaginians and Romans, through Germanic migrations to a whole host of islamic people over hundreds of years, to the immigrant-based re-populations of Christian Spain as it expended.

It's not like - 'the Turks came and took over from the Greeks' (apologies if over-simplified)

But yes - the basic population of Spain was there throughout, changing with the wind. Some hundreds of thousands were of course expelled in the 15th, 16th and early 17th century, but in a population of millions...........
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,787
UK
In most historical cases, invaders merely change the culture, governance, and language, but not the genetic stock, as it were. The Romans didn't, neither did the Franks under Charlemagne. The Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Arabs, etc. are other examples.

I guess in the strict sense invasion is merely taking territory. It doesn't have to be a genocide, displacement or ethnic cleansing, since it's about ruling a people as much as it is a land or kingdom.