Coping celtisist. No actual proof that the people considered legally Welsh in the east of England actually still spoke Welsh, pretending that the invaders contributing 40% of the post invasion genome is insignificant and completely ignoring that enough britions found living under the English unbearable enough to flee to swap the language and ethnic identity of Armorica
>pretending that the invaders contributing 40% of the post invasion genome is insignificant and completely ignoring that enough britions found living under the English unbearable enough to flee to swap the language and ethnic identity of Armorica
He said that it’s anywhere between 10% to 40%. But even if it’s 40% that means it wasn’t a complete genocide or replacement of the Celts. The celts must have existed under Anglo-Saxons long enough to breed with them and so on. That means Englishmen, on the whole, are mostly Celtic by blood, being between 90% and 60% descended from the people on Britain before the Saxon’s arrived.
I do t even get how America favored in because that was almost 1000 years later after those populations clearly mixed into what we now consider English. The Irish, Scottish, and Welsh took their turns emigrating, but that doesn’t say anything about 600s Celtics still living under anglosaxons.
>He said that it’s anywhere between 10% to 40%. But even if it’s 40% that means it wasn’t a complete genocide or replacement of the Celts.
No one claims it was a "complete genocide", but if what the Anglo-Saxons did to the Britons happened recently I guarantee you that no one would have an issue calling it a genocide. No one would claim that a successful generalplan ost was not a genocide because the Germans planned to germanize some of the population or leave some Slavs around as a slave caste. >I do t even get how America favored in because that was almost 1000 years later after those populations
You are a huge fricking moron. Literally have a nice day and save the rest of the board from reading your clueless fricking posts.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I know, I fricked up the part about Brittany. I can be pretty moronic. But the whole video deals with why there’s no Celtic language in England and why the previous Celtic language left no mark on English. The answer from the Victorian age as well as the answer I often see here is that the Germanics replaced them all. >No one claims it was a “completely genocide”
There are plenty of people who pop into this thread and others who assert the English aren’t related the the Celts and that they’re muh 100% Germanic.
But that’s not true if there are Englishman walking around that are up to 90% descended from the people living in Britain before the Saxons arrived. There must have been sizable portions of that Celtic population that persisted and eventually assimilated. I stand by that point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But that’s not true if there are Englishman walking around that are up to 90% descended from the people living in Britain before the Saxons arrived. There must have been sizable portions of that Celtic population that persisted and eventually assimilated. I stand by that point.
Good job ignoring the fact that the celts were not an ethnic group and that insular celts in the british isles were genetically closer to the anglo saxons that invaded than to celts in gaul or hispania or anatolia
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is such a gay semantic point for you to make. I tried preempting it by saying “people living in Britain before Saxons arrived.” When I refer to celts in this instance I’m obviously referring to the Celtic-speaking people of the British isles before the Saxons arrived, their actual relation to Gauls genetically is irrelevant and I’m not even bringing it up. Nothing about what I said went to imply I’m trying to make all celtic speakers a part of the same ethnic group. And even accepting that the Celtic-speaking Britons were closer to the Germanics than to the Gauls, the DNA of the Celtic-speaking Britons and the Germanics are distinct enough that we can tell most Englishmen are between 60-90% one and not the other. Your point does nothing to what I’m saying.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is such a gay semantic point for you to make. I tried preempting it by saying “people living in Britain before Saxons arrived.” When I refer to celts in this instance I’m obviously referring to the Celtic-speaking people of the British isles before the Saxons arrived, their actual relation to Gauls genetically is irrelevant and I’m not even bringing it up. Nothing about what I said went to imply I’m trying to make all celtic speakers a part of the same ethnic group. And even accepting that the Celtic-speaking Britons were closer to the Germanics than to the Gauls, the DNA of the Celtic-speaking Britons and the Germanics are distinct enough that we can tell most Englishmen are between 60-90% one and not the other. Your point does nothing to what I’m saying.
What the frick is with your LARP?
Bell beakers came to britain, massacred farmers, a while later they came and adopted celtic culture. then a while later these people were invaded and adopted anglo culture. it's that simple
by your standards celts shouldn't be referred to as celtic because they do not have celtic blood and should instead be referred to as beakers
2 years ago
Anonymous
Maybe we don’t have actually disagree on much and this is a misunderstanding. What I’m getting at is precisely this >later these people were invaded and adopting Anglo culture
That’s all I’m saying. Those people weren’t massacred and replaced genetically by Anglo saxons. Rather they mixed and adopted Anglo culture to become modern Englishmen. I’m just talking about the genetic continuity before the Anglo-Saxon invasion and after, showing that the Britons already there in the 400s persisted until now, they just completely flipped languages. I’m not saying anything about the connection between Gauls and Britons or something like that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're just a hypocrite
If by standards we should not call the english anglos because they are mostly celtic genetically then why should we call the celts in britain celtic? They were almost completely non-celtic, being descended from bell beakers
2 years ago
Anonymous
>then why should we call the celts in britain celtic?
I mean that’s a good point. I honestly don’t know. I’m just going off of the short-hand where everyone calls them Celtic. I guess my LARP, if anything, is that the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish are far more related than not. The only—aside from obvious historical grievances—difference is how much Germanic DNA they have (between 10-40%) and when they started speaking English. Whether or not either should be called Celtic or Germanic or whatever is less what I’m getting at and I’m more getting at a uniform “Britishness” of them all.
And the English are definitely Anglos. I’m just saying they’re not as Germanic genetically as that would imply.
And if our whole thing too is to go off language (as seemed to be implied by your post), sure English is Germanic descended, but it’s mutted to hell with latin based words. English shares such a proximity to latin languages that Italian and Spanish are some of the easiest languages to learn for a native English speaker because they share so much vocabulary. I know this first hand learning Italian. I think English is more of its own thing.
They made the men slaves and married the women lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know what you guys are talking about but I've heard that anglo-saxons didn't want the breton women even as sex slaves because they found them too ugly
2 years ago
Anonymous
Does it not come from King Arthur (I mean the movie starring Clive Owen)?
IIRC, Norah Chadwick considered that the Britons who settled in Armorica did so because they were under pressure of Irish raids, not of Anglo-Saxon invasions. Her main argument in support for this thesis is that the said settlers came from Western Britain and not from its Central or Eastern parts, IE the areas where Germanic pressure was the most important. For all I know, it may have been both kinds of pression that started the exile of said Britons, now AFAIK Chadwick's book is still considered an authority among scholars.
I'm sure Irish raiding would be a contributing factor to why you might want to move, but on the face of it outright conquest by people the Romanized Britons considered barbarians seems like something that would contribute as well. I doubt the proto-Anglo-Saxons were particularly bothered about respecting old land ownership. I don't know much about Breton history but I'd be interested in what their sources from close to the actual event say. If the Bretons are blaming the English within a generation of the event I'd tend to think there was a kernel of truth in it.
Maybe it was mostly western Britons that settled Brittany because eastern britions who moved to avoid the Anglo Saxons simply moved west in Britain and told the Britons already there to frick off if they didn't like it?
I know, I fricked up the part about Brittany. I can be pretty moronic. But the whole video deals with why there’s no Celtic language in England and why the previous Celtic language left no mark on English. The answer from the Victorian age as well as the answer I often see here is that the Germanics replaced them all. >No one claims it was a “completely genocide”
There are plenty of people who pop into this thread and others who assert the English aren’t related the the Celts and that they’re muh 100% Germanic.
But that’s not true if there are Englishman walking around that are up to 90% descended from the people living in Britain before the Saxons arrived. There must have been sizable portions of that Celtic population that persisted and eventually assimilated. I stand by that point.
>He said that it’s anywhere between 10% to 40%. But even if it’s 40% that means it wasn’t a complete genocide or replacement of the Celts.
No one claims it was a "complete genocide", but if what the Anglo-Saxons did to the Britons happened recently I guarantee you that no one would have an issue calling it a genocide. No one would claim that a successful generalplan ost was not a genocide because the Germans planned to germanize some of the population or leave some Slavs around as a slave caste. >I do t even get how America favored in because that was almost 1000 years later after those populations
You are a huge fricking moron. Literally have a nice day and save the rest of the board from reading your clueless fricking posts.
(You)
I know, I fricked up the part about Brittany. I can be pretty moronic. But the whole video deals with why there’s no Celtic language in England and why the previous Celtic language left no mark on English. The answer from the Victorian age as well as the answer I often see here is that the Germanics replaced them all. >There are plenty of people who pop into this thread and others who assert the English aren’t related the the Celts and that they’re muh 100% Germanic.
Stop taken memers so seriously.
IMAGINE how comfy it was in Ancient Gaul before the Romans took over.
>Hunting wild pigs with your father >Training in sword fight with your friends >Learning about your ancestors from the village elder >Seeing all that wilderness from the watchtower over the palisade walls >Falling in love with the cute daughter of the village druid
> waking up one night to shouts and screams and dogs barking > being raided by who knows who > cant escape because you and everyone else are hemmed in the palisade > get slaughtered like sheep in a pen with a wolf pack entering
>waking up one night to shouts and screams and dogs barking >it's filthy nomad raiders trying to invade >they are slaughtered by the brave soldiers of the village who were alerted in time by the sentinel in the watchtower
>Hunting wild pigs with your father
The most common meat eaten by Gauls was from domestic pigs, not wild boars. Gauls were excellent farmers and as such had deforested large chunks of their country.
>Training in sword fight with your friends
If you were born a noble maybe, most commoners were armed with a spear and a shield.
>Learning about your ancestors from the village elder
That one's true.
>Seeing all that wilderness from the watchtower over the palisade walls
Not quite wrong but as said above, Gauls had cut a shitton of woods so their country was not as wooded as you imagine.
>Falling in love with the cute daughter of the village druid
Gauls had a rigid class system, some scholars almost assimilate it to a caste sytem. That is, if you were born a commoner, you may fall in love with a noblemen's daughter, but you'd never get to marry your loved one.
Okay I got no clues on the Celts. So asking, Pre-Anglo-Saxons. Can the Celts of the British isles understand each other? Like can the Britons understand the Picts, and the Gaels understand them?
Bede seemed to think that the Picts and Britons had different languages, though placename evidence suggests Picts did speak something related to the Briton's language. We don't know anything about Pictish, but perhaps it was different due to picking up a lot less from Latin, or from being isolated during the Roman period, which might have made it less mutually intelligible with the rest of the Brythonic dialect continuum. I think some Welsh sources also don't seem to make a strong distinction between Northern Britons and Picts, and the Irish seem to have used the same word for both. We have no Pictish writing to tell use how they thought of themselves though. Gaelic and British were probably already too different to be mutually intelligible, I don't think they were ever considered related people until modern linguistics and the Celtic revival. Though if Pictish was a anachronism from when they were less divergent that might explain why the language was able to swap to Gaelic seemingly relatively easily.
If I ever have access to a time machine I'm arranging it so that the pre-English peoples of the British isles are called something other than Celtic to save us all this workcel autism
I think that the Blue Fugates are descendants from ancient French celts or something. The celts were sometimes referred to as "blue people", no?
They have a distinct blood disorder due to inbreeding.
Imagine the smell
Thoughts on this video?
I agree with it’s premises and only remain a bit hesitant to claim these green pockets were definitely Celtic speaking.
Coping celtisist. No actual proof that the people considered legally Welsh in the east of England actually still spoke Welsh, pretending that the invaders contributing 40% of the post invasion genome is insignificant and completely ignoring that enough britions found living under the English unbearable enough to flee to swap the language and ethnic identity of Armorica
>pretending that the invaders contributing 40% of the post invasion genome is insignificant and completely ignoring that enough britions found living under the English unbearable enough to flee to swap the language and ethnic identity of Armorica
He said that it’s anywhere between 10% to 40%. But even if it’s 40% that means it wasn’t a complete genocide or replacement of the Celts. The celts must have existed under Anglo-Saxons long enough to breed with them and so on. That means Englishmen, on the whole, are mostly Celtic by blood, being between 90% and 60% descended from the people on Britain before the Saxon’s arrived.
I do t even get how America favored in because that was almost 1000 years later after those populations clearly mixed into what we now consider English. The Irish, Scottish, and Welsh took their turns emigrating, but that doesn’t say anything about 600s Celtics still living under anglosaxons.
Armorica not America.
Armorica is Brittany.
Oh, forgive me then. I had a moron moment.
>He said that it’s anywhere between 10% to 40%. But even if it’s 40% that means it wasn’t a complete genocide or replacement of the Celts.
No one claims it was a "complete genocide", but if what the Anglo-Saxons did to the Britons happened recently I guarantee you that no one would have an issue calling it a genocide. No one would claim that a successful generalplan ost was not a genocide because the Germans planned to germanize some of the population or leave some Slavs around as a slave caste.
>I do t even get how America favored in because that was almost 1000 years later after those populations
You are a huge fricking moron. Literally have a nice day and save the rest of the board from reading your clueless fricking posts.
I know, I fricked up the part about Brittany. I can be pretty moronic. But the whole video deals with why there’s no Celtic language in England and why the previous Celtic language left no mark on English. The answer from the Victorian age as well as the answer I often see here is that the Germanics replaced them all.
>No one claims it was a “completely genocide”
There are plenty of people who pop into this thread and others who assert the English aren’t related the the Celts and that they’re muh 100% Germanic.
But that’s not true if there are Englishman walking around that are up to 90% descended from the people living in Britain before the Saxons arrived. There must have been sizable portions of that Celtic population that persisted and eventually assimilated. I stand by that point.
>But that’s not true if there are Englishman walking around that are up to 90% descended from the people living in Britain before the Saxons arrived. There must have been sizable portions of that Celtic population that persisted and eventually assimilated. I stand by that point.
Good job ignoring the fact that the celts were not an ethnic group and that insular celts in the british isles were genetically closer to the anglo saxons that invaded than to celts in gaul or hispania or anatolia
This is such a gay semantic point for you to make. I tried preempting it by saying “people living in Britain before Saxons arrived.” When I refer to celts in this instance I’m obviously referring to the Celtic-speaking people of the British isles before the Saxons arrived, their actual relation to Gauls genetically is irrelevant and I’m not even bringing it up. Nothing about what I said went to imply I’m trying to make all celtic speakers a part of the same ethnic group. And even accepting that the Celtic-speaking Britons were closer to the Germanics than to the Gauls, the DNA of the Celtic-speaking Britons and the Germanics are distinct enough that we can tell most Englishmen are between 60-90% one and not the other. Your point does nothing to what I’m saying.
>This is such a gay semantic point for you to make. I tried preempting it by saying “people living in Britain before Saxons arrived.” When I refer to celts in this instance I’m obviously referring to the Celtic-speaking people of the British isles before the Saxons arrived, their actual relation to Gauls genetically is irrelevant and I’m not even bringing it up. Nothing about what I said went to imply I’m trying to make all celtic speakers a part of the same ethnic group. And even accepting that the Celtic-speaking Britons were closer to the Germanics than to the Gauls, the DNA of the Celtic-speaking Britons and the Germanics are distinct enough that we can tell most Englishmen are between 60-90% one and not the other. Your point does nothing to what I’m saying.
What the frick is with your LARP?
Bell beakers came to britain, massacred farmers, a while later they came and adopted celtic culture. then a while later these people were invaded and adopted anglo culture. it's that simple
by your standards celts shouldn't be referred to as celtic because they do not have celtic blood and should instead be referred to as beakers
Maybe we don’t have actually disagree on much and this is a misunderstanding. What I’m getting at is precisely this
>later these people were invaded and adopting Anglo culture
That’s all I’m saying. Those people weren’t massacred and replaced genetically by Anglo saxons. Rather they mixed and adopted Anglo culture to become modern Englishmen. I’m just talking about the genetic continuity before the Anglo-Saxon invasion and after, showing that the Britons already there in the 400s persisted until now, they just completely flipped languages. I’m not saying anything about the connection between Gauls and Britons or something like that.
You're just a hypocrite
If by standards we should not call the english anglos because they are mostly celtic genetically then why should we call the celts in britain celtic? They were almost completely non-celtic, being descended from bell beakers
>then why should we call the celts in britain celtic?
I mean that’s a good point. I honestly don’t know. I’m just going off of the short-hand where everyone calls them Celtic. I guess my LARP, if anything, is that the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish are far more related than not. The only—aside from obvious historical grievances—difference is how much Germanic DNA they have (between 10-40%) and when they started speaking English. Whether or not either should be called Celtic or Germanic or whatever is less what I’m getting at and I’m more getting at a uniform “Britishness” of them all.
And the English are definitely Anglos. I’m just saying they’re not as Germanic genetically as that would imply.
And if our whole thing too is to go off language (as seemed to be implied by your post), sure English is Germanic descended, but it’s mutted to hell with latin based words. English shares such a proximity to latin languages that Italian and Spanish are some of the easiest languages to learn for a native English speaker because they share so much vocabulary. I know this first hand learning Italian. I think English is more of its own thing.
>the British isles
They made the men slaves and married the women lol
I don't know what you guys are talking about but I've heard that anglo-saxons didn't want the breton women even as sex slaves because they found them too ugly
Does it not come from King Arthur (I mean the movie starring Clive Owen)?
IIRC, Norah Chadwick considered that the Britons who settled in Armorica did so because they were under pressure of Irish raids, not of Anglo-Saxon invasions. Her main argument in support for this thesis is that the said settlers came from Western Britain and not from its Central or Eastern parts, IE the areas where Germanic pressure was the most important. For all I know, it may have been both kinds of pression that started the exile of said Britons, now AFAIK Chadwick's book is still considered an authority among scholars.
I'm sure Irish raiding would be a contributing factor to why you might want to move, but on the face of it outright conquest by people the Romanized Britons considered barbarians seems like something that would contribute as well. I doubt the proto-Anglo-Saxons were particularly bothered about respecting old land ownership. I don't know much about Breton history but I'd be interested in what their sources from close to the actual event say. If the Bretons are blaming the English within a generation of the event I'd tend to think there was a kernel of truth in it.
Maybe it was mostly western Britons that settled Brittany because eastern britions who moved to avoid the Anglo Saxons simply moved west in Britain and told the Britons already there to frick off if they didn't like it?
(You)
I know, I fricked up the part about Brittany. I can be pretty moronic. But the whole video deals with why there’s no Celtic language in England and why the previous Celtic language left no mark on English. The answer from the Victorian age as well as the answer I often see here is that the Germanics replaced them all.
>There are plenty of people who pop into this thread and others who assert the English aren’t related the the Celts and that they’re muh 100% Germanic.
Stop taken memers so seriously.
Reminder that Brythonic are last Roman than the G*eek from the east.
Pictish was Gaelic
Anyone got a place I can find some decent info on Celtic mythology/paganism? Most of what I've found so far is pretty shit
Why this seem so comfy ?
IMAGINE how comfy it was in Ancient Gaul before the Romans took over.
>Hunting wild pigs with your father
>Training in sword fight with your friends
>Learning about your ancestors from the village elder
>Seeing all that wilderness from the watchtower over the palisade walls
>Falling in love with the cute daughter of the village druid
> waking up one night to shouts and screams and dogs barking
> being raided by who knows who
> cant escape because you and everyone else are hemmed in the palisade
> get slaughtered like sheep in a pen with a wolf pack entering
>waking up one night to shouts and screams and dogs barking
>it's filthy nomad raiders trying to invade
>they are slaughtered by the brave soldiers of the village who were alerted in time by the sentinel in the watchtower
your dad sent you to find the breast plate stretcher didn't he?
>Hunting wild pigs with your father
The most common meat eaten by Gauls was from domestic pigs, not wild boars. Gauls were excellent farmers and as such had deforested large chunks of their country.
>Training in sword fight with your friends
If you were born a noble maybe, most commoners were armed with a spear and a shield.
>Learning about your ancestors from the village elder
That one's true.
>Seeing all that wilderness from the watchtower over the palisade walls
Not quite wrong but as said above, Gauls had cut a shitton of woods so their country was not as wooded as you imagine.
>Falling in love with the cute daughter of the village druid
Gauls had a rigid class system, some scholars almost assimilate it to a caste sytem. That is, if you were born a commoner, you may fall in love with a noblemen's daughter, but you'd never get to marry your loved one.
Did they really have rope bridges like that?
I don't think so. Neither did they have stone walls.
Okay I got no clues on the Celts. So asking, Pre-Anglo-Saxons. Can the Celts of the British isles understand each other? Like can the Britons understand the Picts, and the Gaels understand them?
Bede seemed to think that the Picts and Britons had different languages, though placename evidence suggests Picts did speak something related to the Briton's language. We don't know anything about Pictish, but perhaps it was different due to picking up a lot less from Latin, or from being isolated during the Roman period, which might have made it less mutually intelligible with the rest of the Brythonic dialect continuum. I think some Welsh sources also don't seem to make a strong distinction between Northern Britons and Picts, and the Irish seem to have used the same word for both. We have no Pictish writing to tell use how they thought of themselves though. Gaelic and British were probably already too different to be mutually intelligible, I don't think they were ever considered related people until modern linguistics and the Celtic revival. Though if Pictish was a anachronism from when they were less divergent that might explain why the language was able to swap to Gaelic seemingly relatively easily.
>Picts did speak something related to the Briton's language
Nope
>the British isles
sorry I will call them the english isle from now on. my mistake.
If I ever have access to a time machine I'm arranging it so that the pre-English peoples of the British isles are called something other than Celtic to save us all this workcel autism
>the British isles
Celts weren't natives to Britannia, the original settlers were more similar to turks than to germanics
WHGs weren’t “more similar to Turks”.
Regarding the "muh genocide, based Germanic Aryan bvlls killed all celts":
Why do the early kings of Wessex have Celtic names?
Why Celts didn't make it?
So this is just a thread about Celtic linguistics, right?
Since you all realise that "Celtic" culture and people have never actually existed.