Thread 17913102

>Migrate overseas, genocide the Celts, and colonize England
>Migrate overseas, genocide the Natives, and colonize America
>Migrate overseas, genocide the Aboriginals, and colonize Australia
is basically everything outside of the German-Danish border stolen land at this point? Why did they keep doing this?

>>17913102 (OP)
vae victis

>>17913114
The vengeful Romano-Briton spirits in England did a haplocurse on every single Anglosphere country which is why they're now all getting replaced by migrants

>>17913102 (OP)
>MARCH OF THE TITANS
kek

>>17913102 (OP)
They didn't genocide the celts in Britain, brits are more Celtic than germanic

>>17913102 (OP)
Their migrations happened like the migrations of today, they just replaced labor of the local population and did crime until the locals were stripped of their possesions and way of life

>>17913581
yeah right...
>arrive in roman britian in the 430s, celts rule and are everywhere
>written history cuts off
>written history appears again
>celtish rule is reduced to strathclyde, wales and cornwall, everywhere else saxons, angles and jutes rule
>romano-celtic citys simply got burned down and oftentimes didnt even get rebuilt

Recent discoveries suggest the migration wasn't a genocide or even an invasion. Sure, probably some violence, but it was more a matter of gradual waves of settlement and intermingling than mass slaughter.

>>17913865
>Recent discoveries suggest the migration wasn't a genocide or even an invasion
While genocide has largely been moved away from there is nobody who would deny that the Angles and the Saxons did not violently invade Britain and fight the local Britons. That's just a strange whitewashing, even if you believe Gildas lied about everything and actually they were all holding hands together in one big circle, archeology shows that (identifiable) Saxon and Angle graves are overwhelmingly of a militaristic nature.

>>17913865
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes establishing rulership over the land alone implies invasion and violence. Nobody becomes king for killing one or two guys. They obviously came in with an army.

>>17913865
>>17913761
Nta but I’m not going to even bother writing a response

>>17913871
Look if your entire mythology is we fought them here we fought them there and on that day they attacked us from the back, is obvious it was an invasion of some sort

>>17913932
>>17913871
I don’t think anyone would deny that there was large scale violence; no one here has said there wasn’t violence. It just wasn’t genocide and replacement. The genetic studies have also given some credence to the *possibility* that there was a mixing of nobles at the top that explain the *possibly* Brythonic names of the progenitors of the House of Wessex.

military superiority

>>17913102 (OP)
Celts were never genocided. Not by the Anglo-Saxons, not by Normans, not by anyone else. It's a hoax made up by Irish nationalists and leftist Welsh historians.

>>17915718
The Scottish lowlands used to speak Gaelic and now they speak “Scots” which is just a type of English. The Scottish lowlanders of today have different YDNA subclades than the Scottish highlanders. Germanic people are barbarians.

>>17913123
Celt descendants are a part of our ethnic origin THOUGH. Alfred is basically Arthur when you think about it hard enough.

>>17913102 (OP)
Celts weren’t genocided. The vast majority of English nationals are 85% Indigenous Briton.
There is no such thing as “Anglo-Saxon” anymore. By the year 900 the absolute purest Anglo Saxons were in one village along the coast and they had a handful of people hitting 90% Germanic with the rest being 50% Germanic. This was 150 years before the Normans even arrived and this was 50 years after the zenith of Danish power in England.
The English aren’t Germanic by blood. Like at all.
>the natives
Native Americans were not genocided. There were a few million in North America (north of Mexico).
The displacement of tribes isn’t a genocide in the way like China killing literally everyone in a 300x300 mile region is a genocide.
The natives would lose a war, move away, repeat.
Not a genocide.
It is possible for groups to die off without genocide occurring.
>aboriginals
See above.

>>17915943
I want to make Scottish Highlanders 1/5 of the world population.

>>17913932
>Angles, Saxons, and Jutes establishing rulership over the land alone implies invasion and violence.

Sure, but rulership and demographics are two different things. England was ruled by Normans after 1066, but that didn't mean everyone living in England was suddenly French.
After Rome withdrew, there clearly was a power vacuum on Great Britain which led to groups from the continent migrating and vying for power on the island in the following centuries.
The migrations shouldn't be imagined as entire peoples moving as one, genociding and plundering everything in their wake, but rather it was small individual groups - sometimes large families but most often groups of young men looking for opportunities.
While maps showing these groups as tribes with neatly defined borders look nice, this obviously wasn't the reality at the time. These people didn't identify themselves as "Saxons" and decided to migrate somewhere else in unison, it was way more individualistic than that.
Continental genetic influence in remains of people from the time period also decays fast the further you move away from the east coast of England, it certainly wasn't like they just replaced everyone - but they did fill the power vacuum.

>>17913102 (OP)
Shut up, kike.

>>17916181
I’m an Aryan goy

Reminder that Celtic had zero influence on the English language.
>do support
common in other west germanic varieties.

>>17915943
>Muh YDNA subclades
Who cares faggot

>>17913102 (OP)
there was no "genocide of the celts"
Firstly because there is no such thing as "celts"

>>17916229
>common in other west germanic varieties
is it?

>>17916814
in plenty of west German and Dutch dialects. I use it all the time. Duut der arbeide? ‘does he work’?

>>17915943
They spoke Pictish long before they spoke Gaelic. Does that imply the Gaels genocided the Picts? No.

>>17916019
>The vast majority of English nationals are 85% Indigenous Briton.
Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon era DNA found at grave sites in Cambridgeshire, calculated that ten modern-day eastern English samples had 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average whilst ten Welsh and Scottish samples each had 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with a large statistical spread in all cases.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4735688/

>>17916899
the gaels actually did genocide the picts though and stole their culture