Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Britain Is More Germanic than It Thinks


questionmark

Recommended Posts

How Germanic is Great Britain really? Archeologists and geneticists have unveiled surprising revelations about the historical origins of people in the modern United Kingdom -- many of whom have ancestors who once crossed the North Sea. arrow3.gifRead more...

image-226190-galleryV9-fwgo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • hetrodoxly

    4

  • Space Commander Travis

    2

  • questionmark

    2

  • Eldorado

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

All this German report is saying is that the British are Anglo-Saxons, which the British have known all along.

Or, at least, the English. The Scots, Welsh and Irish like to try and separate themselves from the English by saying that they are Celts and are the original inhabitants of these islands before those evil, brutal and nasty Anglo-Saxons came over.

But I think what that report is saying is that the Scots and Welsh (but maybe not the Irish) are actually as Germanic as the English, which I think would be hilarious if true.

What that report doesn't mention, though, is that the Anglo-Saxons were actually invited over to Britain.

In the 5th Century, Hengist and Horsa were invited over by a British king, who lived in what is now England, called Vortigern who wanted to pay Hengist and Horsa and their men to come over, settle in what is now Kent and fight the Picts, who lived in what is now Scotland. Instead, Hengist and Horsa turned on Vortigern and seized his kingdom. Hengist's son Aesc became king of the minor Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent. Essex and Sussex were added to their kingdom.

The English word "horse" comes from Horsa, and the flag of Kent features a white horse, the symbol of the county.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pesky Germans been marching all over Europe for millenia. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only fitting then,that the Queen, with her German background, reigns !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Normans were definitely Scandinavian. Norman = North or Norse man...aka William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Go back far enough, the inhabitants of the "Isles" came from mainland Europe...be it from the northern Scandinavian lands or from France-Germany. The OP source article is not hard to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this German report is saying is that the British are Anglo-Saxons, which the British have known all along.

Or, at least, the English. The Scots, Welsh and Irish like to try and separate themselves from the English by saying that they are Celts and are the original inhabitants of these islands before those evil, brutal and nasty Anglo-Saxons came over.

But I think what that report is saying is that the Scots and Welsh (but maybe not the Irish) are actually as Germanic as the English, which I think would be hilarious if true.

What that report doesn't mention, though, is that the Anglo-Saxons were actually invited over to Britain.

In the 5th Century, Hengist and Horsa were invited over by a British king, who lived in what is now England, called Vortigern who wanted to pay Hengist and Horsa and their men to come over, settle in what is now Kent and fight the Picts, who lived in what is now Scotland. Instead, Hengist and Horsa turned on Vortigern and seized his kingdom. Hengist's son Aesc became king of the minor Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent. Essex and Sussex were added to their kingdom.

The English word "horse" comes from Horsa, and the flag of Kent features a white horse, the symbol of the county.

Just to muddy things even further, the "Celts" themselves were probably from the Danube/southern Germany area in the first place as well. or perhaps the steppes of Russia. Anyway, all the "native races" of these islands were from round those parts originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Matthias Schulz? this work if it can be called that is random snippets of information probably gathered of the net any credibility this guy has can be destroyed straight away, he claims "Archaeologist Heinrich Härke of the University of Reading has now come up with a quantitative estimate of the migratory movement. He suspects that up to 200,000 emigrants crossed the North Sea" this is what Härke actually wrote, "The role of migration in the Anglo-Saxon transition in England remains controversial. Archaeological and historical evidence is inconclusive, but current estimates of the contribution of migrants to the English population range from less than 10 000 to as many as 200 000" Härke wrote this 5 years ago the author of this hotch potch of an article tries to lead the reader into believing his article comes from the release of a new report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of that, I'd have thought it was fairly self-evident that it was true. Nothing there to get angry about, is there?

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of that, I'd have thought it was fairly self-evident that it was true. Nothing there to get angry about, is there?

No it's not self evident the latest DNA research, archeological and linguistic evidence suggests Germanics make up no more than 5% of British ancestry it might be slightly higher in Scotland, no anger just a stickler for facts and the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not self evident the latest DNA research, archeological and linguistic evidence suggests Germanics make up no more than 5% of British ancestry it might be slightly higher in Scotland, no anger just a stickler for facts and the truth.

Yet a study by University College of London contradicts the work of Stephen Oppenheimer who I guess you are referencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of that, I'd have thought it was fairly self-evident that it was true. Nothing there to get angry about, is there?

Only if you are trying to sell some blood and soil theories around, only then....:devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yet a study by University College of London contradicts the work of Stephen Oppenheimer who I guess you are referencing.

Stephen Oppenheimer is only one voice amongst many, the best evidence i've read is 'Blood of the Isles' Bryan Sykes Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford.

Do you have a link to the work done by University College of London, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.