Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins?
Among Italics only the Romans ever amounted to much. The Sabellian or Samnites aren't particularly more impressive than the Celtiberians.
Contact with the Greeks played a huge part certainly but there's more to it.
>Sabellian
That's the name of a character in WoW and not an ancient Italic tribe.
I'm going to kys myself now.
Many Roman patrician gens were Sabine, Samnite etc in origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabines#Prominent_Sabines
Also Etruscans were great
Yes and once they were integrated into the empire the iberians also had emperors and stuff.
But by themselves they didn't amount to much.
Etruscans are a special case, them and the greeks is what gave Rome a headstart
There were no Iberian patricians.
Emperors are different thing, there were more Illyrian emperors than Iberian
Augustus was Volsci
These were only Latins and Etruscans and mostly due to levels of autism unacceptable to clinical psychiatrics among the former
What about native sicilians?
Nuragics are pretty cool.
>Also Etruscans were great
>Etruscans
>Italic
Yes? It shows that they were like other italics genetically
Etruscans were non-Italic speaking due to east med elites, but most of them were assimilated italics.
>east med elites
Absolute headcanon
>ancients were wrong
No
Even some ancents like Dionysus of Halicarnassus doubted that.
Thucydides says Sicani came from Iberia and we found some R1b-DF27 among them. Ancients are trustworthy.
Most Etruscans were just assimilated local Italics, no one denies this.
>Thucydides says Sicani came from Iberia and we found some R1b-DF27 among them.
Meaningless, autosomally they were completely different from the Iberians. Most lineages were different too.
i'm talking about the language theory too, it's not from asia
Why would we trust them on anything beyond their immediate past? Herodotus thought that an inscription left by an Anatolian bronze age kingdom that neighbour his homeland was actually left by an Egyptian pharaoh, if he didn't have a clue about the history of his own lands, why would he know about lands located hundreds and hundreds of miles from his own?
almost all modern scholarship about the etruscans abandoned the asia minor model
>A 2021 genetic study published in the journal Science Advances analyzed the autosomal DNA of 48 Iron Age individuals from Tuscany and Lazio and confirmed that the Etruscan individuals displayed the ancestral component Steppe in the same percentages as found in the previously analyzed Iron Age Latins, and that the Etruscans' DNA completely lacks a signal of recent admixture with Anatolia or the Eastern Mediterranean, concluding that the Etruscans were autochthonous and they had a genetic profile similar to their Latin neighbors. Both Etruscans and Latins joined firmly the European cluster, 75% of the Etruscan male individuals were found to belong to haplogroup R1b, especially R1b-P312 and its derivative R1b-L2 whose direct ancestor is R1b-U152, while the most common mitochondrial DNA haplogroup among the Etruscans was H.[32]
OOPS! Yet another shitskin We Wuzer narrative utterly BTFO.
White Europeans influenced shitskin culture, but never vice versa. Iron Age European Sea Peoplesdestroyed all the inferior shit Bronze age civs too and raped their women.
Most were locals. Minority of invaders brought language and civilization to conquered people. Etruscans were different on civilizitional level from other Italians.
Iberian blood was diluted in them, but some lineages were preserved.
This is similar to what happened to Hungarians. By your logic Hungarians are Slavs and never had Uralic elites.
>By your logic Hungarians are Slavs and never had Uralic elites
Correct. Most of the Uralic component of the Hungarians was massacred because they refused chritianization.
Also we don't have proof that the etruscan language came from the east
>Iberian blood was diluted in them, but some lineages were preserved.
Non sense. They had more East Med blood than West Med blood, those lineages weren't prevalent in the slightest. Yes, Sicily is in the Middle of the Mediterranean so it got migrations from all over it, the fact that they got (possibly) a small migrations from Iberia doesn't mean anything. Most other stuff they got wrong: Georgians coming from Egypt, Phoenicians from the Red Sea, a broken clock can be right once a day, but in this case we can't even say they were right, since these Sicani got DNA from all over the place, and this lineage was probably not just in Iberia but in other Bell Beaker Mediterranean contexts, we have very few samples after all
They hadn't
Huge cope. Etruscans came from the Alps like the other Tyrrhenians and have a long proven native development record there.
There is absolutely zero evidence of linguistic or cultural transfer from the East, but there is ample evidence that the Tyrrhenians can be identified with the "Sea Peoples".
Therefore any cultural similarities is due to Europeans raping the locals in the Levant and leaving traces of their culture there during the Bronze age collapse.
This would make sense as the Vinca symbols which looks similar to proto-Latin/Italic scripts predate the Phoenician alphabet by 3000 years and the latter looks nothing like Cuneiform so they almost certainly got it from Sea People rape.
Sea peoples were Meds from Corsica, Sardinia and Anatolia
West European* meds
Correct. Destroying your shitty old inferior bronze age civs using European iron.
West and east meds. None were white
Indo-Europeans were White, then they raped locals and became browner.
The direction of cultural, linguistic and genetic geneflow is still the same: from central Europe out to meds out to shitskins in Levant, Iran and even India.
But never vice versa. Never happened even once. Carthage were the last shitskins to try and they all got butchered and genocided like the Semitic filthy they were by Chad Indo-Europeans.
Romans were shitskins and raped nordics hard
>Blue eyes, of the same recessive gene found only im Whites
>Shitskins
Man you are coping hard. The ancestors of Romans came from central Europe, CWC. That's why they spoke Indo-European language.
>pajeets speak indoeuropean so they are white
Ok
Yes. They are R1a too.
Pajeets are mixed with Dravidian shit and are less than 20% CWC.
Romans are 70% CWC and 100% paternal Steppe men.
the study includes outliers for the romans, their percentage of blue eyes is higher when you exclude outliers
i checked the supplementary material, you can be a good boy and do it yourself
so stop spamming this, post the actual charts with any individual samples
plus you had very light populations in some parts of italy like the picenes, or the daunians in pic rel
sicanis were hyper "west med", they almost resemble sardinians
east med were useless migrant garbage
this, italy was completely destroyed by eastern mediterraneans
yes, northern european migrations after the roman empire kinda saved southern europe a bit from turning into a complete and utter shithole
if there were no northern european migrations to italy and the rest of southern europe, iberia, italy and greece, would unironically be full mena troon shitholes and would resemble literal middle easterners instead of being only partially middle eastern
unfortunately this transformation wasn't complete and so you have the modern brown italian/iberian
as i was saying tho
blue eyes in the ancients of mainland southern italy were incredibly more common than in the modern brown south italian
>Apulia
Those are Illyrians. Sicilians and actual italics including etruscans were dark af
Italians and israelites are the only modern meds who contributed to science.
Iberians produced almost zero relevant scientists after reconquista
Iberians didn't produce any scientists before the reconquista either.
Go ahead name them.
>Those are Illyrians.
those were the local people of the region, being illyrian influenced (like the picenes) doesn't turn them into non locals
and sicanis weren't italics, so they're in the same boat as illyrians
also, and that's the last time that i'll tell you this, the 10% blue eyes figures for latins INCLUDES OUTLIERS with middle eastern admixture, when those are removed the percentage is much higher, sorry but that's the harsh truth, so they're weren't "dark as frick"
so i have to post the supplementary material with all the samples so you shut the frick up forever?
>Italians and israelites are the only modern meds who contributed to science.
italians are half middle eastern, they're migrants from the middle east
>Iberians produced almost zero relevant scientists after reconquista
iberians are baboons with nafri admxiture
here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all
these are all the samples from lazio in the study
when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)
you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
you basically lost
Look at this lying piece of crap.
There are 38 Etruscans in the study and only one of them has blue eyes. Excluding the outliers, the blue eyes ration among Etruscans/Latins is actually 6,6%
>There are 38 Etruscans in the study and only one of them has blue eyes.
i didn't lie moronic subhuman trash
read better what i said
>these are all the samples from lazio in the study
>from lazio
>LAZIO
get it, i only picked the samples from lazio
if you only count the latins from lazio 27% are blue eyed when the useless irrelevant outliers are excluded
if you count all samples from LAZIO 14% are blue eyed
>when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
this is correct for romans, thank you for btfoing the ibero-italian scum
so it's officially settled, the latins were 27% blue eyed
seems to be the case, latins were fairly light for southern euro standards with their 27% blue eyes
>sample size is 7
Rejected. Look at etruscans
no, i look at etruscans to judge the percentages in etruscans
latins are 27% blue eyed
you're actually right
if we exclude those outliers all the lazio samples are 3/19 blue eyed, which makes them 16% blue eyed
>16% blue eyed
So were andalusian tier brownoids
the latin samples are 27% blue eyed
for the etruscans, taq023, taq007, vet008 and vet006.9 are all middle eastern outliers and should not be included
so you are actually including 2 outliers, taq007 and taq023
the mas001 is also an outlier with natufian ancestry
and? around 25% of spaniards have blue or green eyes. and around 30% for italy
only after the germanic arrival confirmed by multiple studies
>The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria
>Regarding the last temporal interval of our ancient genomic transect (500 to 1000 CE), we observe that individuals grouped in the “C.Italy_Early.Medieval” cluster are generally shifted toward central European groups compared to C.Italy_Imperial and largely overlap with present-day populations from central Italy (TSI.SG) (Fig. 5A) (30). Using f4-tests, we can show that this transition is confirmed by a reduced affinity of C.Italy_Early.Medieval toward eastern Mediterranean populations compared to C.Italy_Imperial (table S2D). Moreover, the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster can be modeled successfully in qpAdm as a mixture between the preceding C.Italy_Imperial group and Late Antique or Medieval groups from northern and eastern Europe (among the 59 populations tested) in estimated proportions of 60 to 90% and 10 to 40%, respectively (table S4E).
without this shifting the population north a bit modern italians would be as brown as cypriots
>those were the local people of the region, being illyrian influenced (like the picenes) doesn't turn them into non locals
Picenes resemble north italians unlike romans and etruscans iirc
>the 10% blue eyes figures for latins INCLUDES OUTLIERS
Those "outliers" make up 1/3 of the sample size. But anyway, only etruscans have good sample size and they are indeed extremely dark
>italians are half middle eastern, they're migrants from the middle east
Middle eastern is meaningless category here. European greeks had more in common with trojans and lycians both culturally and genetically than with european nordics
>iberians are baboons with nafri admxiture
Iberians are west meds and they are similar to romans even in sense that they are amazing warriors, but incompenent scientists
I'm northern european with brown eyes. 14% is low, most italics looked like me
>Picenes resemble north italians unlike romans and etruscans iirc
doesn't make them non local, half of italy was like picenes and daunians, northern italian samples are even more northeastern according to leaks
>Those "outliers" make up 1/3 of the sample size.
middle eastern irrelevant migrants
>Middle eastern is meaningless category here. European greeks had more in common with trojans and lycians both culturally and genetically than with european nordics
it's a meaningful category hence why they're classified as outliers
>I'm northern european with brown eyes. 14% is low, most italics looked like me
you are not, you are a southron
>northern italian samples are even more northeastern according to leaks
It's very interesting to look at them, most of roman historians were from cisalpine gaul
>middle eastern
East med is more correct category
>classified as outliers
Northern shifted etruscans are classified as outliers too
>you are not, you are a southron
I'm not. I can easily prove it to you if you post a contact
>East med is more correct category
no, middle eastern is the correct category
>Northern shifted etruscans are classified as outliers too
yes because they have central european admixture, just like the middle eastern outliers have middle eastern admixture
>I'm not. I can easily prove it to you if you post a contact
you are a lying southron, you the same southron that didn't
>is the correct category
I have already explained why this is not
>middle eastern outliers
No such thing, they called them east med outliers. A half roman half greek would be east med outlier
>you are a lying southron
I'm a northerner. Let's be allies
>I have already explained why this is not
you didn't and probably it's some moronic explanation about muh ancient greeks
they have middle eastern admixture, not proper greek admixture (mycenean-like the only actual genetic greeks, not mutts from anatolia)
>No such thing, they called them east med outliers. A half roman half greek would be east med outlier
they're not half roman half greek, don't fricking start terrone, they're half middle eastern
>I'm a northerner. Let's be allies
you are not
Europeans are closer to middle easterners than to other europeans from even same region. The separation doesn't make any sense. They belong to same category - east meds
>they're not half roman half greek
Some are
>you are not
Sorry but I am
Myceneans =/= Hellenic Greeks.
Europeans have nothing in common with middle easters except for genociding them and raping the local slaves that were left.
Any trace of similarity in modern MENA to European peoples is due to centuries for Greco-Romano-Frankish rape.
Most hellenic greeks were even more eastern shifted
>Even those who came from the Prytaneum of Athens, and reckon themselves the purest Ionians of all, brought no wives with them to the new country, but married Carian girls, whose fathers they had slain.
>Herodotus
>The separation doesn't make any sense.
the separation makes perfect, and the reason some of the mutt samples from anatolia could be closer is because they're HALF MIDDLE EASTERN mutt, with more than 50% MIDDLE EASTERN bronze age anatolian
Distance to: Greece_BA_Mycenaean
0.02399056 Greece_Delphi_BA_Mycenaean
0.04593352 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_in.preparation
0.04844881 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_Pylos
0.04909568 Turkey_Roman_4
0.05191126 Turkey_Roman_5
0.05989495 Turkey_Roman_2
0.07161417 Turkey_EBA
0.09407570 Turkey_MBA
Target: Turkey_Roman_5
Distance: 1.7897% / 0.01789701
68.0 Turkey_EBA
32.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean
Target: Turkey_Roman_4
Distance: 2.6227% / 0.02622669
58.0 Turkey_EBA
42.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean
Target: Turkey_Roman_2
Distance: 3.6719% / 0.03671918
66.0 Turkey_EBA
34.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean
don't start with the andalusian-italian lies
> Romans
not really, see
27% blue eyed, don't spread misinformation
>0.04844881 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_Pylos
>0.04909568 Turkey_Roman_4
Literal same cluster, thanks for proving my point.
That sample is pure west anatolian (lycian) btw
>Literal same cluster, thanks for proving my point.
the point isn't proven the mutt has more greek admixture compared to other mutts
now let's check the distance from the full MENA from which the anatolian greeks derive most of their ancestry
>0.07161417 Turkey_EBA
>0.09407570 Turkey_MBA
yep, they're not the same people
>full MENA
Again meaningless category. We can say they are mostly european since they were mostly eef and chg
middle eastern is a category full of meaning, the bronze age anatolians were fully middle easterners
No they were indoeuropean and close to europeans like mycenaeans
no they were 100% middle easterners
3/18, aka 17% blue eyed in lazio
the romans specifically were 27% blue eyed, the etruscans closest to romans were more blue eyed it seems
>the etruscans closest to romans were more blue eyed it seems
blue eyed roman influence
seems like it, there's an evident correlation
>7 samples
Frisian anon, it's irrelevant size
the size is relevant, 27% of the roman samples were blue eyed
You are trolling
no, you are, since you keep lying
>without this shifting the population north a bit modern italians would be as brown as cypriots
imperial italians were extremely middle eastern
They resembled greeks, not even christian levantines who are european admixed. They weren't extremely middle eastern
>They resembled greeks
cypriots are quasi middle eastern
>not even christian levantines who are european admixed.
christian levantines are 95% middle eastern
>They weren't extremely middle eastern
they were almost fully middle eastern
No, imperial sample is 5% levantine and 0% arab, but 70% aegean. Although modern central italians are half r1b italo-celtic, seems like this imperial profile was not common in rural areas or most of them migrated to eastern rome when western one collapsed
>agean
doesn't exist
imperial samples are half middle eastern (bronze age levantine and anatolian)
Bronze age pops didn't exist in roman era, most migrants were diogenes and galen like
in roman era people were mixed with bronze age pops
just how much are you going to deny the obvious?
Lol wrong, they were exterminated and buried in their mines
EEF is a meaningless buzzword. They were just a mongrel race of Natufian males and WHG females.
ancient anatolian greeks were just mutts of mena middle easterners original anatolians and greeks
the modern populations of italy and greece are simply a bunch of mutted slaves with a portion of their dna that comes from bronze age levant and anatolia
incredible how much italians lie on IQfy
everyone, and i mean everyone can take a glance at these results and reach the same conclusion (that italians and greeks have middle eastern admixture) except them
>modern populations of italy and greece
There have always been waves of migrations from east to west. The first greek philosopher from 600 BC was descended from Levantine merchant.
>> Romans
>not really, see
[...]
here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all
these are all the samples from lazio in the study
when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)
you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
you basically lost # 27% blue eyed, don't spread misinformation
Seven samples and none of them is from Rome. Average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%. Sicilians were unironically lighter than them.
>Seven samples and none of them is from Rome.
they're all from rome and very close to rome, don't you even try to make up some fake arbitrary rule
>. Average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%.
average latin is 27%, stop spreading your lies you troony
>they're all from rome and very close to rome, don't you even try to make up some fake arbitrary rule
They are not from Rome, but from different parts of Latium. The average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%. If we include outliers is even lower. I stand correct.
>They are not from Rome, but from different parts of Latium.
which is irrelevant, this is some arbitrary rule you made up and i won't consider it, latins were 27% blue eyed
>The average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%.
etruscans aren't latins, or we should consider the picenes and the daunians too
> If we include outliers is even lower.
no one except italians, specifically south italians, think those half middle easterners should be included
>picenes, or the daunians
Irrelevant Black folk. Etruscans, Romans and Magna Graecians were dark as frick.
>White Europeans influenced shitskin culture, but never vice versa
what does it even mean lmao?
greeks were the most shitskinned europeans and they literally founded euro civ. then brown romans spread it to whites
>what does it even mean lmao?
Chariots, pastorialism, metalworking, astronomy etc. come from the Steppe and spread to MENA through repeated invasions and rape.
>greeks were the most shitskinned europeans and they literally founded euro civ. then brown romans spread it to whites
Hellenic Greeks are not the same as Mycenean Greeks. Hellenics came from the Steppe much later.
Syrians are not proof of anything as they are turbo mutted due to rapes by:
>Hittites
>Sea peoples
>Hellenic Greeks
>Romans
>Crusaders
>Mongols
>Various other non-Euro shit like Arabs
Of course there's a lot of European semen entering Syria so they are shifted to us, but it never flowed back into Europe, not even once. Proof:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25912-9
bait
Cope diagram.
The oldest iron age civ in Europe is Hallstatt. Europe grew out of Indo-European civilization and didn't have much interaction with the East except for sending waves of conquest there much later.
>euro civ
Hallstatt is the oldest contuous iron age civilization in Europe, not meds.
absolutely nothing to do with east meds, we know that they spoke the language of their eef mothers, not some "east med" language of the iron age period
They hired my VGH Germanic ancestors as mercenaries to pointlessly brutalize other pipo
>little in the way of brow ridges
Brutal way to put it. That's quite odd given how typical they are in basically all west Eurasian groups, I wonder if this was common in other EEF-rich groups.
all outdated bullshits, etruscans didn't have any middle eastern elite and didn't speak a middle eastern language
they simply kept using the language of their eef mommies
Well the Turdetani weren't doing too bad...
6 There are exported from Turdetania large quantities of grain and wine, and also olive oil, not only in large quantities, but also of best quality. And further, wax, honey, and pitch are exported from there, and large quantities of kermes,27 and ruddle28 which is not inferior to the Sinopian earth. And they build up their ships there out of native timber; and they have salt quarries in their country, and not a few streams of salt water; and not unimportant, either, is the fish-salting industry that is carried on, not only from this county,º but also from the rest of the seaboard outside the Pillars; and the product is not inferior to that of the Pontus."
"The ferrets with their claws drag outside all the rabbits they catch, or else force them to flee into the open, where men, stationed at the hole, catch them as they are driven out. The abundance of the exports of Turdetania is indicated by the size and the number of the ships; for merchantmen of the greatest size sail from this country to Dicaearchia, and to Ostia, the seaport of Rome; and their number very nearly rivals that of the Libyan ships."
"Formerly much cloth came from Turdetania, but now, wool, rather of the raven-black sort.29 And it is surpassingly beautiful; at all events, the rams are bought for breeding purposes at a talent apiece. Surpassing, too, are the delicate fabrics which are woven by the people of Salacia"
"Along with the happy lot of their country, the qualities of both gentleness and civility have come to the Turdetanians; and to the Celtic peoples, too, on account of their being neighbours to the Turdetanians, as Polybius has said, or else on account of their kinship"
"The Turdetanians are ranked as the wisest of the Iberians; and they make use of an alphabet, and possess records of their ancient history, poems, and laws written in verse that are six thousand years old,10 as they assert. And also the other Iberians use an alphabet, though not letters of one and the same character, for their speech is not one and the same, either. "
>Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?
No. Central Italy was not like Iberia, Greece or really anywhere else in the world. The peoples of Central Italy, from the Samnites, Sabines, Etruscans and Latins were all a increasingly urbanised and hyper warlike societies that continued a cycle of mass conscription of young men across the region for centuries. Some 20% of men in Central Italy by the Middle Republic were actively engaged in military serivce at all times. It was the Romans who won the contest in Central Italy and they went out exporting war to the rest of the world, but it could have easily been the Samnites who started moving into Southern Italy before their entanglements with Rome, which as soon as Rome won once and for all just picked up where they left off. Central Italian society was nothing like anywhere else in the world. Even Nomadic societies had less military participation as compared to urban Central Italians, let alone the Iberians or anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean. The only other comparable state in terms of military numbers was Carthage, which was helped by their very large amount of allies and the large military participation of Punic cities.
Ancient Iberians conquered America 25.000 years ago. They are the real native americans.
Roman ability to assimilate and synthesize and use diversity as a true strength.
Because Italy is closer to Greece/Eastern Med/Asia, and so received civilisation (the crop package of olive trees, grapevines and wheat/barley) earlier.
Also Italy has better farmland than Iberia so can sustain a larger population.
>Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?
Because the people who founded Rome were the Trojans who came to the peninsula after Troy was rekt. Meaning, they already had the know-how for civilization creation.
>Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins?
Because Carthage, Etruria and Greece were the three most important Phoenician colonies. Iberia was used mostly for mining. It was less attractive because it was further away from Phoenicia and Asia in general.
>Was it due to east med influence?
It was due to Phoenician influence. That's where they got their languages from, and even the concept of a city.
Once you understand Europe was colonized by Phoenicia like America was colonized by Europe, everything makes a lot more fricking sense.
Of course there was also colonization from the east through the north. A lot of the local hunter gatherers and primitive agriculturalists and pastoralists were wiped out or buried in their mines by the Phoenicians. Greek Phoenicians especially preferred to import food from Egypt and other places.
that's most of the world, homosexual sapiens were from the near east
No shit sherlock, no need to tell me.
you're a homosexual nonsapiens
>Italics
Italy was not a country until the 19th century, racist medchud
Italy was populated by a mixture of Franks, Germans, Phoenicians and slavs
Links to the Greeks who had links to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. It's easier to develop when you don't start from nothing.