Tell me about them /his/
Them being barbarians is a bluepilled meme. They actually had an empire which was quite comparable to the Romans, but due to Jews gaining power in the Empire and infiltrating the Church, many of the great germanic philosophers and Histories have been lost.
>>414972
dude, same.
why the fuck did they travel most of the known world and then invade and control spain? what did they want? where were they from? why did they come? where they running from someone? was it attilla the hun? who were the huns anyway?
>tfw im a history newfag
Literally equal to blacks in our modern time
>>414983
i don't even think Blacks can organize armies, they barely manage large crowds.
>>414980
it was pretty much the huns who came in that pushed all these barbarian tribes to the west. Alot of the barbarians then living in the Roman Empire started rempaging and sacked major cities.
They just ended up settling in Rome and Spain in the collapsed west
>>414987
What about the Zulu lel
>>415052
were the huns mongols?
>>414975
They didnt have anything even close to an empire of Rome. Especially not the Visigoths of all people.
Most of the tribes themselves were illiterate, how the fuck can they have histories or philosophers when most people couldnt read?
>>415098
No, they lived between turkey and mongolia and had a completely different culture to the mongols. Some people think they came from China.
>>415098
No, but with how nomadic tribes worked there were probably some similarities between them. The huns themselves came about after the Chinese pushed them out of western asia, their rampage throughout central asia forced successive migrations of germanic tribes into the roman empire.
>>415121
>its like a house of dominoes.
my next question is, what was the Huns problem? what reason did they have to rampage in the first place?
and if there is a legitimate benefit to a society to act in this manor, why didn't more cultures do it?
>>415113
>falling for such obvious bait
>>415146
Isnt there an area in Sweden called Gotaland?
>>415145
The long and short of it is, living on the steppes made you hard as fuck back in the day.
Resources are scarce, farming didnt work for most of it and you always had to watch your back for some fucker taking your woman and your horses.
However Steppe people werent stupid and they had a massive appreciation for all the wonderful things that came out of civilized cities. They also learned that the very same people were not hard as fuck and often just caved in and bribed you to go away.
If you lived in the middle of nowhere with no significant agricultural or industrial output you would keep going back for more as well.
It was a very profitable business for nomadic peoples. There was no profit for rich cities to exploid steppe peoples because there was nothing to exploit.
>and if there is a legitimate benefit to a society to act in this manor, why didn't more cultures do it?
Rome did it alot, its why it became powerful. But when it ran out of rich civilizations it could easily pillage it stopped.
>At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire.[5]
>Honorius's general Constantius (who would later become Emperor Constantius III), poisoned official relations with Ataulf and gained permission to blockade the Mediterranean ports of Gaul.
>Constantius' naval blockade was successful and, in 415, Ataulf withdrew with his people into northern Hispania.
>Galla Placidia traveled with Ataulf. The infant son, Theodosius, she bore him died in infancy and was buried in Hispania in a silver-plated coffin,[6] thus eliminating an opportunity for a Romano-Visigothic line.
>no competent Western Gothic Dynasty
Fucking Constantius and Honorius fucking everything up
>>415265
I wonder if it would have made a significant difference to the outcome of western Europe. Its crazy to think about.
There was literally a thread about them a few days ago
I'm just going to say what I said last time.
They are Thracians.
>>415339
thats clearly wrong.
>>415346
You saying that doesn't mean it is.
>>415350
you saying that doesnt mean it isnt
>>415145
Provided they were the same people the Chinese sources labeled as Xiongnu, who had an empire in the territory that is now Mongolia, they were battling with the Chinese for a long time and finally lost badly and were forced to leave the Eastern Eurasian Steppe. (The Chinese built the grat wall against them in particular btw.)
There are very few relics about their language, but the most plausible theory is that they were Turkic tribes from the oghur branch (other than the Chuvash people in Russia it is extinct now, also the most different from the rest of the Turkic languages) as the others who came after them (Bolgars, Avars and Kazars).
Before the Huns the nomadic migration was from West to East, and it consisted of Tochars and Indo-Iranian people (both of them Indo-European groups - they even reached Dzungaria, Chinese sorces called them red barbarians refering to their hair colour), it was the Huns that turned the tide back. Once I've read somewhere that the reason behind this was an invention in horse-riding, the stirrup, that gave an edge for the Eastern Eurasian nomads as the invention came from the Eastern Eurasian Steppe. It's a bit controversial because it might as well be introduced in Europe later in the thanks to Avars in the late 6th or early 7th century. Chinese had it for sure around AD 322 (found in a tomb). The spread of this invention in Europe is said to be one contributor that enabled the chivalric lifestyle, warfare and fudalism in general.
>>415388
God damn it, I don't want to discuss this shit again, but I can't find the thread in the archives either
Several authors have said that the Goths are Thracian. That by itself should be enough evidence
>>415402
>there are Gothic language written documents as the entire New Testament was translated to Gothic in their own alphabet, a derivation of latin alphabet with some German runes
sounds like total bullshit desu
>>415417
actually its origin was Greek alphabet, my mistake
>>415265
>Western Gothic Dynasty
I am fully erect
>>415417
Oh, you talking about the Codex Argenteus?
That's a pile of bullshit all by itself mi amigo
Have you not noticed that it's written in silver ink? And when did silver ink start getting produced? Oh yeah right, 16th century.
Also, you've probably heard that the Goths inhabited the lands of the Balkan. Then why don't the people have a similar vocabulary to the one that's used in Codex Argenteus?
>>415445
Because he said he was wrong. Goths took northern Italy and Iberia, and engrained themselves into the Roman upper class.
They simply settled in Crimea, and lasted much longer in their culture and language.
>>414975
>muh noble pure germanics
>Rome was run by joos
>>415474
>he said in a Germanic language
>>415401
>The Chinese built the grat wall against them in particular btw.
Ive heard that historians now believe THE great wall was a Ming construct but the Chinese have always had various walls made of everything from dirt to bricks that at some points were connected to funnel the xiongnu and steppe tribes through predictable routes for battle.
>>415445
I have never heard of this theory, maybe you can provide some sources backing your claims. Btw wiki says it was written in Italy, not the Balkans. And it says
>In 1998 the codex was subjected to carbon-14 analysis; the codex was dated to the sixth century.
>>415479
Could be, Chinese always had touble with northern barbarians even before the Huns.
>>414980
Spain was agriculturally rich and in the way of the even more agriculturally rich province of Africa (roughly modern Tunisia). That caused Suebians, Vandals and Alans to go and settle in Spain after raiding and plundering Gaul. The visigoths were a mercenary people under the romans and they were requested to expulse the vandals and the alans from Iberia, which they did so they received land in modern South France to settle. In it's early stages, the hearth of the visigothic realm was Toulouse in Aquitania, not Hispania though they controlled a good part of it for the reasons already explained and later campaigns. Later Clovis of the Franks defeated the visigoths and forced them to relinquish Aquitania, moving the capital to Septimania and then Hispania (ultimately Toledo in the center of the peninsula, but also other hispanic cities first).
All this happened after the goths had moved from Romania to sack greece and, later, Italy to end up plundering Rome in 410. Alaric king of the goths did all this to extort the romans and force them to give him titles and supplies for his horde. In the case of the sack of Rome it was also because an anti-germanic government was ruling the western empire after the assasination of Stilicho.
>>415145
Literally all culures from that geographical area did it until they were crushed by settled peoples in fairly recent times. Mongols were just the biggest and more famous steppe empire.
>>415479
>Ive heard that historians now believe THE great wall was a Ming construct
The great wall as you see IS a Ming Dynasty Construction. Its not a theory, we have records on it.
It demolished and linked all the existing walls together to form one solid barrier.
Prior to it was a system of walls & walled off passes collectively called "the Great Wall" whose primary jobs were to seal off easy passes to China.
If you look at the current great wall- it goes beyond that in sealing even mountain passes.
But not all dynasties relied on it. The Han and Qing was in favor of just going out and killing the Nomads. The T'ang and Song dynasties established tributary relations with neighboring client nomads. The Ming Dynasty relied on both the wall+its own armies+ armies of client nomads to defend against Mongols.
In the end the cunts who relied on the wall too damned much were the Qin and Sui Dynasties.
>>415479
The modern wall was built in Ming times. The wall by itself existed before.
Think about it like pretty much every cathedral in Europe, a lot of them founded centuries before the modern building was erected.
>>414975
kek
>>415493
>wiki says it was writtein in Italy
Holy fuck, did they edit the articles?
I'm literally seeing this for the first time since months and they've changed quite a lot of shit.
Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas
>Ulfilas, also known as Ulphilas and Orphilas
>Orphilas
This is one clue that shows their ties to the Thracians. Orphilas is a word play (is that how it's called?) of *Orpheus*
Then there's this
>he obtained permission from Constantius II to migrate with his flock of converts to Moesia
This region was inhabited by Thracians, the Moesi/Mysi, to be precise. Why would he ask for permission to write his book exactly there of all places, if he's not one of them?
> Ulfilas created the Gothic alphabet based on the Getae's alphabet, with minor alterations.
The Getae are a Thracian tribe.
But of course, since this is wikipedia, we can't believe everything, so here's some other evidence I've found on this.
There are no authors who have said that the Goths are a germanic tribe. In fact, there are several authors (e.g. Strabo and Jordanes come to mind) who have said that the Goths are in fact Getae. It has also been said that the Goths are horse archers and the Germanic Tribes aren't exactly known for their horse archers.
There are also German scholars who have said that the word visi from visigoths have nothing to do with the word "West", but means "Vessi". The Vessi being *Bessi*, which is another Thracian Tribe.
>>415445
Spaniards and italians do not have a similar vocabulary either.
The goths were an army with families, always small in numbers. They were never the majority of inhabitants of whatever place they settled in.
>>415493
Its nationalist bullshit. Literally like macedonians claiming heritage from Alexander.
It's been a while since I read it, but this books had a lot of good information on Gothic and Hun culture, and how it changed as Rome fell.
The author has also written a book called "Empires and Barbarians," but I haven't read it.
>>414975
WIR
>>415575
That's new to me.
>>415609
Visigoths being estern germanic peoples like the vandals sure isn't new at all.
>>415617
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the "nationalist bullshit" part.
>>415563
Why would some writers confusing or merging getae with geats change anything?
You're whole argument is similar to the modus operandi of afrocentrism.
>>414972
People make the mistake of thinking that at some point the Goths got round the campfire and were like, "alright lads we're going to invade the empire and take some motherfucking land".
Like every single barbarian in the history of Rome, they had no intention of damaging it or fucking it up. On the contrary, the barbarians wanted to work within the limits of the Empire for their own gain. The Ostrogoths requested permission to cross into the empire in order to fight for the emperors, in exchange for safety and some land grants. It was only a few retarded Roman officials that messed everything up, the Empire had been recruiting barbarians into the army for many centuries by that point. The Visigoths (who were literally just the Goths that did not stay with the other Goths (who later were called Ostrogoths behind the Danube) under Alaric marched into the Balkans to sustain themselves, they later spent the next few decades under Alaric trying to get an official title for him as magister militum which would allow him access to state food supplies keeping his people fed. Even the sack of Rome was essentially the result of a diplomatic cock up when the emperor Honorius refused to give him a military title and then a rogue Roman general attacked the Visigoths while they were literally standing at the negotiating table.
The Visigoths were an unhappy accident for the Romans, at many times they worked for them, e.g. fighting at the Frigidus and Save River, fighting the Suevi and Vandals in Spain, Stilicho used them against the Eastern Empire in Dalmatia and the Visigoths were one of the most important members of Aetius' coalition against the Huns in 451.
This post probably makes me sound like some sort of apologist, i'm just saying that the Visigoths were just illiterate, bumfuck barbarians. They did not have some grand plan to conquer parts of the empire, they just took advantage of a senile old man who had long ago sunk into ruination due to civil wars.
the chuches( and such) with a gothic architecture, are a vestige to their ancient culture.
>>415563
But Goths spoke a Germanic language
>>415748
Who says so?
>>414975
>Jews gaining power
Are you really retarded enough to say Rome was Jew controlled?
>>415607
WAREN
>>415764
Academic consensus.
>>415802
And how does it prove that?
>>415764
The fact that they're the largest eat Germanic language. Now all dead.
>>415790
KAISER
>>415901
UND
>>415935
SCHEISSE
>>415806
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible
>>414972
opportunists
I don't know much about the Ostrogoths but the Visigoths were incredibly inept rulers whose "disease," the so-called morbus gothorum, was essentially the cause of a 700-year occupation of (parts of) Iberia by Muslims.
>>415402
Those authors are in large part taking a leaf from Jordanes' Getica. Jordanes also claimed that the Parthians were descended from Gothic deserters, so that should tell you something about how reliable his account of their history is. There is more than enough evidence that the Goths were Eastern Germanics.
>>416005
I hope it's okay if I ask you to show me that evidence.
>>416005
They also drove them out lad
>>416017
Evidence of which claim? That the Goths were Eastern Germanics? That Jordanes claims the Parthians were Gothic descendants? That the Visigoths caused the Muslim "conquest" of Iberia?
>>416025
That the Goths were Eastern Germanics. Sorry, I forgot to say that.
>>416022
Not really. The Visigoths ceased to be an identifiable group within Iberian society by the ~9th century, having been absorbed into the native Iberian population and contributing in small part, as did many others, to the ethnogenesis to the various Iberian peoples. Don Pelayo began the Reconquista, it's true, but native Iberian Christians perpetuated and finished it.
>Goths aren't East Germans
There are actually enough archaeological evidence to reconstruct gradual migration patterns from Baltic to Black seas in 2-4th centuries. You can't say everyone in the region was a goth, but influence is obvious.
>>416031
The Goths were natives of Scandinavia (on this, Jordanes is correct, as is his assertion that they migrated to the Baltics [which he termed "Gothiscandza"]). We have plenty of archeological evidence to substantiate this, including the traces left by the Wielbark culture. Their migration out of Scandinavia also seems to be substantiated by archaeological evidence of a period of great depopulation in the Swedish region of Ostergotland around the 1st century AD. For evidence of this depopulation, see Graf Oxenstierna's "Die Urheimat der Goten". For evidence of the Wielbark culture connection, refer to:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120414235502/http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm
Of course there's also linguistic evidence. We know that Gothic was a Germanic language(s) because, as someone has already said previously, we have the "Wulfile Bible". And if this is not compelling enough for you, one need only look at the names of the Goths themselves, as well as Gothic toponyms.
>>416068
Weeell then where are they?
>>416080
Whatever few stayed behind would have been absorbed by the dominant population in that location, as they were in Iberia.
>>416080
Assimilated by slavs, like all the eastern Germans east of Elbe. There are reports about Gothic language surviving in Crimea until late middle ages though.
>>414972
Ostrogoths: Proud German Christians who led a prospering multicultural society in Italy.
That is until the Byzantines waged a multiple decade long war against them destroying much of Italy.
>>416078
>The Goths were natives of Scandinavia (on this, Jordanes is correct, as is his assertion that they migrated to the Baltics [which he termed "Gothiscandza"])
That's not even remotely true, Gothic loanwords exist in Baltic languages but they were mediated trough Slavic languages, that means that Goths never direct contact with Balts or that they didn't pass trough Baltics and Balts as archeological culture were already identified centuries before near On the right bank of Vistula river which supposed they passed trough and also area included modern day Kaliningrad.
>>416108
It is true, though, and we have archeological evidence to support the fact that Goths did migrate through the Baltics. I've already linked the relevant article on this subject.
>>416039
Visigoths would've been native Christians.
>>416113
>Frederick Kurtland "The Origins of the Goths", page 4, final point:
>A final point to be noted is that Baltic loanwords from Gothic were transmitted through Slavic (cf. Stender-Petersen 1927: 134 and Green 1998: 172-174), which suggests that the Balts never had direct contact with the Goths but were separated from them by the Slavs.
>It is true, though, and we have archeological evidence to support the fact that Goths did migrate through the Baltics.
No.
>>416118
Oh? Did the Visigoths originate in Iberia?
>>416123
To the Umayyad, they would've been native.
>>416078
Alright! I've picked some names of importance to the (apparently Germanic) Goths!
Theodemir, Valamir and Videmir.
Theodemir, as you probably know, is Theoderic's father. Valamir and Videmir being Theodemir's brothers.
If these are supposedly Germanic names, why aren't they still in use? The only places where they are used are in countries, who are (if we are going by history and culture of the countries) Thracian. For example Vladimir, Dobromir, Slavomir etc. You get the point. As to your other points.. I'll have to look them over. If I see this thread tomorrow I'll continue the conversation.
Before I go, please give me (if you have such) pages where I can start in "Die Urheimat der Goten", thanks.
>>416122
Except we do. As I already said, the Wielbark culture is identified as having been partly constituted by Goths. I never made any claims that Baltic peoples had any extensive contact with the Goths, or that whatever Gothic loanwords exist in Baltic languages were transmitted without mediation by Slavic peoples.
And, in fact, the source you have cited does not contradict the claim that the Goths migrated through the Baltic region in the least.
Ah, and here's an interesting video that I found a few months ago about the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwaXHAg-fAQ
If Justinian hadn't gone to Italy, I wonder how the Ostrogoths would've faired in the long run? They did keep much of the old Roman system of bureaucracy running. And could they have thwarted the Lombards?
There was a point when both the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were under the same ruler. Italy and Iberia were even connected with all of southern France. Imagine if they had remained together?
The Visigoths were stupid as fuck. They alienated their Hispano-Roman subjects as well as the Jews; no shit that was gonna bite them in the ass. If Roderick had defeated Tariq, Iberia wouldn't become Moorish.
The Crimean Goths are interesting.
>>416131
> For example Vladimir, Dobromir, Slavomir etc.
Vlad-, dobro- and slav- are clearly slavic roots, and -mir is considered to be germanic influence. These are slavic, not "thracian" names, yet no one says Goths were Slavs, rightfully so.
>>416130
Well, the Umayyad are always my go-to reference when determining whether or not a people are native to a region...
>>416131
What do you mean why aren't such names still in use? Names fall out of use all the time. Nonetheless, those names you have listed are absolutely Germanic in origin.
Theodomir/Thiudamar/Theodemer, etc. - thiud- ("people" [related to i.e. the Anglo-Saxon theod-] this element still exists in i.e. the name Dietrich) and -mir/mar/mer ("famous" [related to i.e. the Swedish -mar] this element still exists in i.e. the name Gunnmar)
Valamir - vala- ("prophet" [related to i.e. the Old Norse name Vali or the Valhalla of mythology] not a commonly used element today) and -mir/mar/mer (see above)
Videmir - vid- ("forest/tree" [related to i.e. the Anglo-Saxon widu/wudu, as in wudughast]) -mir/mar/mer (see above)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is it your contention that the Goths were Thracians or something?
>>416203
>Well, the Umayyad are always my go-to reference when determining whether or not a people are native to a region...
for the Muslim conquest of Iberia, it should
>>416398
I don't see how that works. The Visigoths weren't native to Iberia, and therefore aren't native Iberians. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
>>416131
>Dobromir, Slavomir
>""""Thracian""""
>>416406
When the people of Iberia are pushing out the Muslims, the "natives" (to the Muslims) this will include the Visigoths who settled there.
>>416417
That's genuinely one of the stupidest things I've ever read here. What you're doing is relativising the word "native," as though it doesn't have an actual definition. The Visigoths were migrants. Native Iberians during this period = people whose ancestors lived in Iberia since pre-history. The Visigoths themselves didn't consider themselves native Iberians, but traced their origins to Scandza/Gothiscandza.
>>416426
>they were migrants
At what point do you become a native? I mean they've been living there for hundreds of years.
>>416436
The Visigoths never became natives. They contributed to the ethnogenesis of modern Iberian peoples, as others like the Romans did, but they themselves were not natives. The only way to "become native" is to be effectively absorbed by the native population.
>>416426
So the Romans or the Celts? Or will you admit that their demographics changed?
>>416440
>the only way to become native is to be absorbed by natives
So who are the natives? Not just Iberian natives but the general meaning of the word according to you.
>>416450
I already told you: people whose ancestors occupied a territory since pre-history, since time immemorial. You are literally the only person I've ever encountered who has difficulty grasping the concept that the Visigoths are not native to the Iberian peninsula. I'm at a loss for words, honestly.
>>416452
>people whose ancestors occupied a territory since pre-history, since time immemorial
Such people don't exist m8. The ancestors of every modern native moved to the place from elsewhere.
>>416452
Calm the fuck down. We know that there were pre-Celtic British Isles people, does this make the Celts and English not natives?
>>416459
That depends on whether you consider British and Irish "Celts" the product of an actual migration or the product of Celticisation/acculturation. If it's the latter, then they are natives (and genetics largely confirms this).
>>416456
Then I will rephrase. People who occupy a given territory, and whose ancestors since pre-history occupied that same territory, and whose ethnogenesis took place roughly within that territory, should be considered native. The Visigoths are still not native even by this definition.
>>416470
>ethnogenesis
19th century horseshit.
>>416470
>That depends on whether you consider British and Irish "Celts" the product of an actual migration or the product of Celticisation/acculturation. If it's the latter, then they are natives (and genetics largely confirms this).
There was clearly a migration, so does this make anyone of mixed blood, to the point of "genuine" (like it isn't a cultural term) Celtic and English majority not a native?
>>416480
If you call the Visigoths native to Iberia then you're a legit retard.
>>416479
Yes, there's no such thing as ethnicity. Looks like the guy above has some company.
In any case, this is vastly off-topic. The post that started all this shit >>416022 is demonstrably false. Unless you morons also want to claim that the Visigoths still existed up until the 15th century, which frankly wouldn't surprise me.
>>415146
No, we really just dont know. Scandinavian origin is one theory out of many. Most germanic tribes were said to have come from scandinavia in the same way they were said to be barbarians.
>>416495
No, and you should take the time to read my posts before responding next time.
And I'm not sure that it's clear at all that there was a migration, but that's another matter.
>>416496
To the Umayyad, the subject of this conversation, yes, they would have been. It's all perspective don't you see? To the Visigoths, these were their kingdoms. Just like to the Latin settlers. And the Celts who could've displaced prehistoric Iberian peoples.
>>416496
Thing is I don't even give a shit about the Visigoths, I only jumped into the debate because I was amused by your pants on head idiotic view on nativity.
>>416504
Well if they're no longer ethnically ""native"" are they natives?
>>416496
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_Kingdom
>>416508
The subject of this conversation is not the Umayyad (you have only attempted to make it so). The subject of this conversation is the Visigoths and more broadly the Goths. What the Umayyads thought about who was or was not native to Iberia (and as of yet, I remind you, no one has established that this even was what they thought) is as irrelevant as what Bing Crosby thought about who was and who was not native to China. The question which began this entire line of discussion is where the Visigoths originated, and that answer is NOT IN IBERIA.
>>416523
Meant to add, SURELY the Visigoths just totally disappeared (where other Iberians did not)
>>416534
Already addressed that ages ago.
>>416530
What a shitty opinion.
>>416543
>But they are. As I already said (hence why I told you to read my post), the only way to "become native" is to effectively be absorbed by the native population.
Well clearly the "true" natives were absorbed, since only Celtic and Germanic culture exists in the British Isles.
>>416547
Yes, I made a post about the Visigoths. What's your point?
>>416543
Ignorant about what? The Visigoths? I never really debated about them but rather about general terms which you have all wrong.
>>416547
THIS was the origin of the conversation
>>416556
Not at all. Rather, they were Celticised/Germanicised/Normanised. Just about every genetic study of the British population has concluded that the people of Britain and Ireland today are essentially unchanged, with migrations only having a greater impact on a highly localised level.
>>416551
Nice rebuttal.
>>416558
This was how it started!
>>416560
>I never really debated about them but rather about general terms which you have all wrong.
Then prove me wrong. Where is the archeological evidence that the Visigoths are native to Iberia, and how do you reconcile this with the heaps of evidence (and their own account) of an alternative origin?
>>416568
Except it wasn't. The Muslims were not the subject of the discussion at all, and the only reason why they were brought up at all was as a means to illustrate how utterly incapable the Visigoths were as administrators.
So, yes, you have attempted to make a discussion of the Goths/Visigoths into a discussion of the Umayyads and their perspective on the Visigoths. Well here's my response to that: what the Umayyads thought about the Visigoths is mildly interesting, sort of like one of those trivia games you might play at Christmas, but ultimately irrelevant. The Visigoths were NOT native Iberians, and did NOT originate in Iberia. Period.
>>416595
Don't care about Visigoths at all. My point is that the distinction between native and non native is 100% arbitrary. The definition closest to objectivity is probably saying that when you're born and grow up somewhere, you're the native.
>>416609
If it is arbitrary it is only arbitrary because of your moronic relativisation of the word "native" when everyone here knows what native means and in what sense it was originally used in this discussion. To illustrate:
>Are the Visigoths native to Iberia?
No.
>Why not?
Because they did not originate in Iberia.
>How do you know this?
Because their own account of their history explicitly suggests they didn't and because the archeological evidence substantiates their account.
How fucking hard is this, really?
>>416622
I was born in America thus I am a native here. Not that hard to understand is it?
>>416595
>Except it wasn't. The Muslims were not the subject of the discussion at all, and the only reason why they were brought up at all was as a means to illustrate how utterly incapable the Visigoths were as administrators.
That's when I replied to you. And that was the subject I replied to about.
How would "but they drove them out" have to do with Gotland, when I was CLEARLY referring to the Umayyads and the reconqiesta. I've you bothered to understand the flow of conversation as opposed to just insulting and taking issue with people, you'd understand this.
>>416632
Tell that to the Indians.
>>416622
>did the Goths live in Iberia when the Umayyads came?
Yes
>were they the natives as compared to the Umayads?
Yes
>>416647
Indians are natives just like I am.
>>416647
Indians can eat a dick, I was born and raised here, and there is no Old World USA. I am a native now. Hundreds of years ago, I would not have.
>>416644
I have to insult people because there's simply no excuse for this level of stupidity.
1. The Visigoths didn't drive them out, as I already said.
2. Even if they did (and I reiterate, they didn't), that still doesn't change the fact that the Visigoths caused the "conquest".
3. We know the Visigoths were not native Iberians regardless of what the Muslims believed (and notice you still haven't established that that's what they actually believed).
4. What "Gotland" has to do with this discussion (on the Goths, I remind you) is that Scandinavia was, by the account of the Goths themselves, their place of origin and that the archaeological evidence we have seem to substantiate this.
>>416655
>did the Goths live in Iberia when the Umayyads came?
Inhabitant =/= native.
>were they the natives as compared to the Umayads?
No they weren't, in fact. Both were foreign, and foreign is foreign. Someone cannot be "more foreign" or "less foreign" than someone else. Either you are native to a place, and not foreign, or you're not.
>>416657
Sure they are. Tell them that and see what they have to say.
>>416662
Sure thing, Chief Running Faucet.
>>416687
>Sure they are. Tell them that and see what they have to say.
How does that change anything? I was born here and so were they. Thus we both are natives.
>b-but your ancestors came from elsewhere
So did theirs.
>>416677
>I have to insult people because there's simply no excuse for this level of stupidity.
Then you're an arrogant cunt, bravo.
>1. The Visigoths didn't drive them out, as I already said.
Because Gothic people disappeared from Iberia forever right?
>2. Even if they did (and I reiterate, they didn't), that still doesn't change the fact that the Visigoths caused the "conquest".
Didn't matter. I don't argue this.
>3. We know the Visigoths were not native Iberians regardless of what the Muslims believed (and notice you still haven't established that that's what they actually believed).
Neither were a hell of a lot of other people. Nativity can change based off perspective. To a Mexican, I am a native in America. No one has a land since the dawn of time, and had stayed with it, and never moved.
>4. What "Gotland" has to do with this discussion (on the Goths, I remind you) is that Scandinavia was, by the account of the Goths themselves, their place of origin and that the archaeological evidence we have seem to substantiate this.
Yes, they did originate there. They were still natives to Iberia. You misunderstand how natives work. Indians came across the strait. They were natives nonetheless.
>>416687
>Chief Running Faucet.
Kek
I'm not an Indian, still a native.
>>416687
>inhabitant =/= native
>"Native" may refer to: Indigenous peoples, peoples with a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory
Goths fit the description by the time of Arab conquest.
>>416699
>Because Gothic people disappeared from Iberia forever right?
Because the Visigoths ceased to be an identifiable group by ~9th century, having been absorbed into the native population. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself you illiterate fuck?
>Nativity can change based off perspective.
We're dealing with history and facts here. Not "perspective" or "feelings" or "belief". The Visigoths were not native to Iberia. Fact. And it's a fact that I can prove.
And I'm still waiting for you to establish that this is what the Muslims thought, dickhead.
>They were still natives to Iberia.
Literally fuck off. This level of stupid is so above and beyond anything I've ever encountered. Thick skulled fuckhead.
>>416715
Yes, and Somalis are native to Sweden. DURRRRRR.
>>416716
Did a Goth scare you when a kid?
>>416716
Not the guy you're replying to, but basically you have your own special snowflake definition of native and launch into a spergfit if someone dares to disagree with you. You're beyond pathetic.
>>416722
The ones born there? Yes they are.
>>416726
Sperg fit is the only option left when I'm dealing with hands down the dumbest fucks on 4chan.
Did the Visigoths originate in Iberia? Yes or no.
>>416735
Did the Indians originate in America? Yes or no.
>>416744
No. Their ethnogenesis took place in America, however. Therefore they are natives.
Now answer my question you fat fuck.
>>416746
Yes they did, you malnourished sandnigger.
>>416755
Like I said, utter retards I'm dealing with.
Fuck this thread, fuck you, fuck this board.
>>416761
Feel free to fuck off, you won't be missed.
>>416761
>Like I said, utter retards I'm dealing with.
You can't follow a conversations topic, and your definition of native means that we can only identify as east African homo sapiens.
>Fuck this thread, fuck you, fuck this board.
Take your rude, aspergers-ridden self back to Reddit, and stay there.
>>416498
Scandinavia is sometimes referred to as the womb of nations, the Burgundians, Allemani, Cimbri, Teutones, Goths, Suebi, Langobards, Franks, Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians all originate from the area. As you ought to know, a lot of these went on to form the modern European states we have today.
>>416883
Who /Germanic/ here?
>>416919
Don't worry, he's gone now. Hopefully.
>>416938
So what you're saying is... Visigoths weren't native Iberians. Glad we agree.
>>415555
Checked
>>416954
You can't ruse me, Alberto Barbrossa
>>415555
I'm white but still saving this because Germanic Americans are cunts about their bitchass heritage.
>>415265
>At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been
Lost me there, fuck that guy. Gonna build a time machine and wipe those krauts out forever
>>414972
The Goths were originally from Scandinavia. They moved to Ukraine/Romania where they eventually separated into 2 groups, Visigoths (literally West Goths) and Ostrogoths (literally East Goths).
Visigoths, along with Alans, Suebi and Vandals formed the core of the 1st migration wave as a result of being pushed by the incoming Huns. This resulted in the effective wrecking of the Western Roman Empire. However the Visigoths were also pivotal in preventing a Hun takeover of the Empire by teaming up with Aetius and together defeated the Hun-Germanic forces in the battle of Chalons. After Aetius death, Rome reduced to total impotence and notable parts of the Empire effectively in the hands of Visigoths, Vandals and Suebi, came the second migrant wave, a merely opportunistic clay-grabbing one by Ostrogoths, Franks and Burgundians basically.
The Visigoths had a tour of wrecking everything in their path in the Balkans, defeating the ERE and killing the Emperor in the battle of Adrianople, then laying siege to Constantinople and eventually moving west after sacking Greece. From current Croatia they moved into Italy and sacked Rome after Stilicho's death. Afterwards they crossed the Alps and settled in Aquitaine and made amends with the Romans (cause afterall all they ever wanted since the Huns appearence was a comfy place to settle in and live in peace), and later on they moved into Hispania, at roman request, to remove Vandals, Alans and Suebi from there. They evacuated Aquitaine after being defeated by a coalition of Franks and Romano-Gauls at Vouille, and then established a Kingdom in Hispania that lasted until 711.
Ostrogoths liked Rome
Visigoths didn't like them
>>414987
Romans thought the same about the Goths until it was too late
dont die thread
>>418871
>as a result of being pushed by the incoming Huns
Can we stop perpetuating this Gibbonian apologist meme?
>>414975
holy shit
holy shit
holy shit
Is this bait or does /pol/ really spread lies like this?
>>422527
Prove it had happened otherwise
Goths were pretty comfy living on the other side of the Empire and everyone knew Rome was not easily messed with
>>419179
Bah
Romans had been afraid of Germans since the Cimbrian War
>>415265
That kid woulda just got killed by a sibling though, in all likelihood.
>>415586
"Empires and Barbarians" is all about migrations, and the interaction between Barbarians, Empires, and other Barbarians. Heather uses archaeological evidence often to paint a picture of the likely origins and migration paths of various Barbarian groups. It's basically a big primer on Romans and Barbarians in Late Antiquity, leading into the early middle ages. Later chapters go into the Slavs, Vikings and Carolingians.
>>414972
They can destroy statues with one swing from a club. Pic related.
>>415563
>There are also German scholars who have said that the word visi from visigoths have nothing to do with the word "West", but means "Vessi
And I assume Ostro is another tribe as well?
Your whole post is based on shaky theories about "but why would he?!?!"
>>416131
What a fucking mongoloid you are.
You do realize that -mir means peace in Russian, and that dobro,vlado, and slavo are all Russian words. right?
