What was the effect of the Gothic invasions on population?

An ancient people we all are, Goths we are not
Part of the ancient Slavdom are we.
Whoever says otherwise slanders and lies,
They will feel our fist.

>>2083765
In France only in septimania the rest was lost to fast, Italy also only Very little long time impact on the longtime population(structual problems) but in Spain/Portugal they left a pretty big impact

>>2083792
Are any of these places still mostly Germanic today? Cheers mate.

Goths never ruled France, wtf are you on about. Visigoths only occupied Aquitaine, but were kicked out by the Franks.

>>2083803
No, not even the goths in 4th/5th/6th century were homogene groupes(pls don't start any racial shit) they consisted of romans,greeks, celts,varios germanic tribes, huns etc. They based their identeties on being in one warband/migrating group under a common king. When the setteld in the west they these groups themself mixed with the roman provincal population to a different degree. Alot in Iberia, only a bit in italy

You have to remember that the tribes invading the Roman Empire were relatively small, we're talking at most tens of thousands of people here, women, children and the elderly included.

Not enough to dramatically change anything: the genetics of modern French people differ very little from the Gauls. The invading tribes settled, quickly intermarried with the locals, and usually adopted their culture, religion and language. The ruling class was indeed genetically Germanic, but became quickly culturally Gallo-Roman. Though of course adding some of their Frankish culture in the mix. And then they also intermarried with the local elites.

The same thing happened in Spain, and in Italy. For example in Italy we can study Lombard tombs to see the evolution of culture: in a few generations they go from classic Germanic style tombs, to Germanic tombs with Roman/Italian, Christian decorations, to just Roman tombs with Germanic names engraved on them.

It's a pattern you can see pretty much every time "barbarians" invade a settled people, from the Slavs in the Balkans, to the Mongols in China, to the Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa.

File: BC51AE45-FBBB-4615-B540-1A616CF3BA8D-2397-000003B7E9766C51_tmp.jpg (257KB, 760x931px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 760x931px

>>2083803
Here you go.

>>2083881
This is great info, thanks!

One thing though, why is the population of the Balkans Slavic, then?

>>2083889
What time period is this?

>>2083892
Modern times.

>>2083896
Cheers. You don't happen to have one of these for Spain or Italy, do you?

>>2083892
>>2083903
You seriously can't tell that's a completely bullshit map?

>>2083906
No I don't know anything about maps... What makes it look bullshit?

>>2083890
They do have Slavic ancestry, more than, say Spaniards have Germanic ancestry, probably because after centuries of warfare and raiding the entire region was greatly depopulated. But, genetically speaking, they are not really Slavs, though they do differ from ancient Illyrians/Thracians/Other ancient Balkan peoples.

However, while the Slavs quickly converted to Christianity, the people of the Balkans did adopt the culture of their conquerors to a greater degree than others, and they did adopt Slavic language, instead of the Slavs adopting the Latin or Greek language. I remember hearing about pottery found in modern Croatia from around the time of the Slavic invasions. They start having Slavic decorations on them, indicating that even the people of the cities started adopting some aspects of Slavic culture.

If I had to guess, I'd say the fact that there was less immediate intermarriage played a role in that. And Rome had fallen for hundreds of years, the Byzantines were a shell of their former self, so Roman culture might have been less the hegemony, less something to emulate. But that's just a guess.

>>2083765
As always in these events, it was merely the ruling class (and a small percentage of lower rankiing settlers) that composed the post-Roman kingdoms. It was the same in Anglo-Saxon England, where a few tens of thousands settled in an area of more than a million Celtic peoples. It was the same in Spain where a hundred thousand Suebes, Goths, Vandals, Alans and others settled amongst several million Romano-Hispanics, who were themselves not culturally homogeneous. The Franks (not Goths) who ruled what became Frankia were a minority in their own kingdom, as it pretty much always is.

>>2083881
This guy has it right. The local prestigious language and culture usually overwhelms the "invaders". Britain and a few other places are actually pretty exceptional in that respect.

File: Vandals were truly proto-poles.png (86KB, 795x631px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 795x631px

>>2083765
Goths and Vandals got SLAV'd though

>>2083765
>Vandals
>run from Huns
>too stupid to cross a river
>river freezes over and keep running west
>only stop when they reach an ocean
>see a Roman build a boat once and suddenly are expert sailors
>Roman governor of North Africa is fearful of rumors of civil war and invites Vandals to help him out in North Africa
>governor finds out the rumors were all fabricated and tells the Vandals to fuck off right as they get done finishing crossing into Africa
>Vandals conquer North Africa since they were already there
>create a bunch of Germans create an Arian theocracy in North Africa
>remain the most significant naval power in the Mediterranean for centuries
Fucking crazy, desu.

>>2084258
>Germans

>>2084134

>"""Proto-Slavic"""
>Haploautism

Vandals and Goths were Gotlanders. Maybe they had some Baltic admix and pre-Baltic Poland native admix but Slavs have nothing to do with East Germanics.

>>2084284
>Slavs have nothing to do with East Germanics.
But they do.

>>2084284
Do we have any source that any of these guys in Spain or northafrica or even their grandparents marched from skandinavia down there? And don't Come up with trustworthy sources like the gethica or other originstories from 5/6th century

>>2084285

Wrong. There's no Slavic influence in Gothic or Gothic in Slavic. There was no more interaction than between Irish and Goths.

>>2084354

The fact that they were Goths/Vandals is enough proof.

>>2084279
Baltic is rightful German clay.

Ok so we have goths first appearing between crimea and the roman border at the blacksea these people march to Spain. What exactly makes these people now gotlanders?
Same goes with Vandals I think they first appeared somewhere around the elbe

>>2084258
>>Roman governor of North Africa is fearful of rumors of civil war and invites Vandals to help him out in North Africa

Actually said governor was Bonifacius, who was a power hungry scumbag who eventually crossed to Italy with his armies and died, leaving Africa defenceless against the Vandals he'd stupidly invited in.

>>2084407

Proto-Germanic, the common ancestor of all Germanic languages isn't very old only about 2500 years or so. East Germanics had to originate very close to the North Germanic branch so they were not from Central Asia or wherever Slavocentrists want them to be from.
Finnish is known to contain Gothic loans so Goths being Gotlanders seems like the only realistic option.
No doubt that these Gotlanders mixed with Lusatian locals in Poland but these locals weren't Slavic. They may have been Celts.

>>2084407
They had moved south and east towards the Pontus Euxine.

>>2084429
Pretty sure there was some dude in Rome spreading rumors of civil war, which led to the Governor to freak out. Eventually the dude spreading rumors was found out. I don't remember names.

>>2084432
>>2084436
Yeah I know these theories. They are as old as, like I said 5/6th century Roman historiography but do we have any sources for that?
About them not being homogene groups we don't have to talk, that's obvious.

>>2083906
>George Montandon is rong cuz I said so!!

/his/ tier debate

>>2084285
Don't mix genetics with language.

>>2084071
Ok so quick question, if I am from England my ancestry is most likely celtic, not Anglo Saxon?

>>2084862
Neither. Your ancestry is primarily paleolithic British tribes from before either the Celtic or Anglo-Saxon invasions.

inb4 haploautism maps conflating male line descent with full genetic ancestry. 'cause, you know, we carry ALL the genes from the dad, right?

>>2084868
Well I'm half German at least.

>>2084868

Actually he would be heavily Anglo-Saxon if from the east of England and heavily Celtic if from the west.

>hurr genetic science is lies we wuz cavemongs and shit

>>2083765
they abandoned most of their germanic roots and started to speak latin

>>2084889
Yeah I'm skeptical because I look Germanic as fuck.

>>2084889
Wrong. This myth has been debunked for decades. The Anglo-Saxons did not genocide the local Britons who lived in eastern Britain.

Culture is not genetics you dense tard.

>>2084958

>myth

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10326

>the Welsh were most consistently ranked as highly identical by state, followed by Irish and Scottish scores, a result strongly supporting an origin within the British Isles for this Roman sample majority. Interestingly, the modern English sample was ranked only ninth for IBS to the Romans from York, at a level similar to German, Norwegian, Orcadian and Basque samples.

>That this could have been, in some part, due to population influx associated with the Anglo-Saxon migrations is suggested by the different genetic signal of the later Anglo-Saxon genome. Iron-Age, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and other migrations have all been proposed as contributors to the genetic structure in modern United Kingdom34.

>>2084369
>Gothic in Slavic
There are tons of Gothic loanwords in Slavic.

Redpill me on the Crimean Goths

>>2083913
The only Germanic parts of France are Alsace-Moselle and a part of Flanders, and even there most people no longer speak the dialect. The only Celtic part of France is Brittany, and the same principle applies.

The whole map is just complete and utter random nonsense.