Most successful ethnicity in Europe?

[Wulfhere]

I'm going to say the English again, obviously, but would be interested to see the counter arguments.

[alzo zero]

Of course it's you English. This is precisely why you have sharia courts in your beautiful country.

[Wulfhere]

Of course it's you English. This is why you have sharia courts in your beautiful countries.

They're everywhere in Europe now.

[alzo zero]

They're everywhere in Europe now.
Nope. :)

[Sikeliot]

Most successful in what time period?

In ancient times it would be the Greeks or Romans (so Greece and Italy), but nowadays I'd say probably one of the Northern European countries.

[Wulfhere]

Nope. :)

I'd be willing to bet otherwise, whether they're in secret or not.

[Wulfhere]

Most successful in what time period?

In ancient times it would be the Greeks or Romans (so Greece and Italy), but nowadays I'd say probably one of the Northern European countries.

Overall, so yes, the Greeks again would be right up there. Not the Romans though, because their ethnicity no longer exists.

[Wyn]

I'm going to say the English again, obviously, but would be interested to see the counter arguments.

Depends what's meant by 'successful.' Given that most northern/northwestern European countries (including England) have become liberal/PC drone-birthers, we can rule most of their native ethnic groups out.

Those ethnic groups that've managed to maintain a sense of conservatism and traditionalism in their ethnic identity - they are the most successful.

This prize does certainly not belong to the English. The Spanish, Irish etc. would've been good contenders until recently. Perhaps they still are. I only have real experience with the Irish (not so much the Spanish) and they are a world away from what's happened to the English.

[alzo zero]

Not the Romans though, because their ethnicity no longer exists.
Obvious trolling. ;)

[Wulfhere]

Depends what's meant by 'successful.' Given that most northern/northwestern European countries (including England) have become liberal/PC drone-birthers, we can rule most of their native ethnic groups out.

Those ethnic groups that've managed to maintain a sense of conservatism and traditionalism to their ethnic identity - they are the most successful.

This prize does certainly not belong to England. Spain, Ireland etc. would've been good contenders until recently. Perhaps they still are.

I'm taking an overall view, not just recent developments, which could, after all, change.

[Wulfhere]

Obvious trolling. ;)

The Roman ethnicity is not the same as the Italian one.

[Sikeliot]

The Roman ethnicity is not the same as the Italian one.

You get what I meant.

[Gaztelu]

The English stopped being successful after WWII.

Today, despite all its problems, the Russians are the most successful ethnicity in Europe, due to their status as an emerging superpower.

[poiuytrewq0987]

The English stopped being successful after WWII.

Today, despite all its problems, the Russians are the most successful ethnicity in Europe, due to their status as an emerging superpower.

I second this.

[Wulfhere]

You get what I meant.

Yes, true, but I don't want to include ethniticities that no longer exist.

[Sikeliot]

Then I'll go with Germans, Norwegians, or Swedes.

[Nurzat]

the quality of life is success to me so i will say norway (public healthcare, GDP per capita, human development index etc... at all chapters which show an advanced society they are the best or among the best; sweden, denmark, finland, iceland are close too but had some problems or are on the path to get them, especially because uncontrolled immigration)

[Wulfhere]

The English stopped being successful after WWII.

Today, despite all its problems, the Russians are the most successful ethnicity in Europe, due to their status as an emerging superpower.

Prior to which they had been successful for centuries. The Greeks stopped being successful centuries ago, but this doesn't diminish their previous achievements.

[Peyrol]

The Roman ethnicity is not the same as the Italian one.

Yes, for 86-88% modern Italy genetic reflect the genetic of 100 A.D..

[alzo zero]

Yes, true, but I don't want to include ethniticities that no longer exist.
What events exactly caused the extinction of the Roman ethnicity?

[Wulfhere]

Yes, for 86-88% modern Italy genetic reflect the genetic of 100 A.D..

The fundamental question is self-identity, and ethnicities don't tend to change their name.

[Wulfhere]

What events exactly caused the extinction of the Roman ethnicity?

Loss of power in their own empire, the fall of that empire, economic collapse, invasion, disruption, all sorts of things.

[Gaztelu]

Prior to which they had been successful for centuries. The Greeks stopped being successful centuries ago, but this doesn't diminish their previous achievements.

So it's about who has been successful for the longest period of time, right?

[Peyrol]

The fundamental question is self-identity, and ethnicities don't tend to change their name.

If we are called "Italians" istead of "Romans", it's only because from 482 and 1200 circa, with the term "romans" were indicated the hellenized populations fo Bizantine Empire.
We couldn't be both called in the same way.


Anyway, most successfull ethnicity is English people.

[Wulfhere]

So it's about who has been successful for the longest period of time, right?

Yes, I suppose.

[alzo zero]

Loss of power in their own empire, the fall of that empire, economic collapse, invasion, disruption, all sorts of things.
You're mentioning the cause of the collapse of the Roman empire, not of the Roman ethnicity.

[Wulfhere]

You're mentioning the cause of the collapse of the Roman empire, not of the Roman ethnicity.

Since the Roman ethnicity didn't survive the fall of the empire for very long, the two events were obviously connected.

[Peyrol]

You're mentioning the cause of the collapse of the Roman empire, not of the Roman ethnicity.

I have yet to figure out how to less than 500,000 barbarians were able to do a ethnic supplant of a strong indigenous population of 8-10 million people in 500 AD.

[alzo zero]

Since the Roman ethnicity didn't survive the fall of the empire for very long, the two events were obviously connected.
The cause of the extinction of the Roman ethnicity is what I've been asking to you, so why did you mention the cause of the fall of the Roman empire since you seem to acknowledge they are two distinct events.

[Wulfhere]

I have yet to figure out how to less than 500,000 barbarians were able to do a ethnic supplant of a strong indigenous population of 8-10 million people in 500 AD.

They didn't. It's all about self-identity, not genetics. The Romans, as a nation, obviously felt themselves so demoralised that they couldn't even cling onto their nationality any more.

[Wulfhere]

The cause of the extinction of the Roman ethnicity is what I've been asking to you, so why did you mention the cause of the fall of the Roman empire since you seem to acknowledge they are two distinct events.

The fall of the empire, and events leading up to that fall, are obviously what caused the Roman ethnicity to wither away and die.

[Wanderlust]

If we are called "Italians" istead of "Romans", it's only because from 482 and 1200 circa, with the term "romans" were indicated the hellenized populations fo Bizantine Empire.
We couldn't be both called in the same way.


Anyway, most successfull ethnicity is English people.

I'll say English people as well.But I wouldn't describe Dutch or Scandinavian people us unsuccessful either.:)

Just out of curiosity,why no one ever mentions French people?

[Peyrol]

The cause of the extinction of the Roman ethnicity is what I've been asking to you, so why did you mention the cause of the fall of the Roman empire since you seem to acknowledge they are two distinct events.

The fall of Rome was not an ethnic factor, as some of these pseudohistorical supports (:laugh:), but caused by a deep statal structural crisis ​​and by the spread of Christianity, that deletes the old militaristic values.

[Peyrol]

The fall of the empire, and events leading up to that fall, are obviously what caused the Roman ethnicity to wither away and die.

Can you quote me the titles of you History books, please? I'm quite curious abouth this alternative theory about the Fall.

[Wulfhere]

The fall of Rome was not an ethnic factor, as some of these pseudohistorical supports (:laugh:), but caused by a deep statal structural crisis of values ​​and by the spread of Christianity, that deletes the old militaristic values.

Which then caused the Roman ethnic identity to cease to exist. It had already been faltering for some time. I think there are references to the Romans as a people around AD 600, which also, as it happens, are our last references to a meeting of the Senate (under Pope Gregory).

[Wulfhere]

Can you quote me the titles of you History books, please? I'm quite curious abouth this alternative theory about the Fall.

What alternative theory?

[Peyrol]

Which then caused the Roman ethnic identity to cease to exist. It had already been faltering for some time. I think there are references to the Romans as a people around AD 600, which also, as it happens, are our last references to a meeting of the Senate (under Pope Gregory).

I've told you in another thread: also Charlemagne and the Longobards king referred to italian popualtion as "romans", while some Popes and italian kings (Arduino I D'Ivrea, for example) referred them as "italica gente".

What is the difference? In the name? Ok.

Modern ethnic italians are the evolution of romans. I haven't said that we are "100% romans" or "the same" (i seen some difficults also to see modern french as the frankish people of Clovis or modern english as "Angles/Engla", however), but only that roman ethnicity couldn't become extint, because it's evolved into our (and in the other romance ethnicities, except the French that are a latinized germanic peoples).

[Gaztelu]

Keep in mind that the average Roman could have been a Celt from Britain, Gaul, or Hispania, an Illyrian from the Haemus, or a Teuton from Germania. When the Romans conquered those regions, the indigenous peoples normally abandoned their native customs and became Romanized.

[alzo zero]

Keep in mind that a typical citizen of the Roman Empire could have been a Celt from Britain, Gaul, or Hispania, an Illyrian, or a Teuton from Germania. When the Romans conquered those regions, the indigenous peoples normally abandoned their native customs and became Romanized.
Undoubtedly there were different degrees of Romanization: a Roman from Northern Italy, Southern France or Illyria (just to name a few) was "more Roman" than a Briton or a Germanic.

[Wulfhere]

I've told you in another thread: also Charlemagne and the Longobards king referred to italian popualtion as "romans", while some Popes and italian kings (Arduino I D'Ivrea, for example) referred them as "italica gente".

What is the difference? In the name? Ok.

Modern ethnic italians are the evolution of romans. I haven't said that we are "100% romans" or "the same" (i seen some difficults also to see modern french as the frankish people of Clovis or modern english as "Angles/Engla", however), but only that roman ethnicity couldn't become extint, because it's evolved into our (and in the other romance ethnicities, except the French that are a latinized germanic peoples).

And there's part of your answer. The Roman ethnicity evolved into a meta-ethnicity which still retained its name, i.e. Romance. That further split into the ethnicities that exist today. Obviously the Italians are closest, no one disputes that, but if they really regarded themselves as Romans, they would still call themselves Romans today (and "Italy" would be, as it was under the empire, a simple geographical expression). In short, instead of a country called Italy, we would have today a very similar country in the same place probably called Romania.

[Peyrol]

Undoubtedly there were different degrees of Romanization: a Roman from Northern Italy, Southern France or Illyria (just to name a few) was "more Roman" than a Briton or a Germanic.

I've always been interested in latin culture that has developed in North Africa between 476 and 700 or so, wiped out by the Muslim expansion.

Who knows, without Islam, if a romance nation would have developed and rise in power....mistery!

[alzo zero]

I've always been interested in latin culture that has developed in North Africa between 476 and 700 or so, wiped out by the Muslim expansion.

Who knows, without Islam, if a romance nation would have developed and rise in power....mistery!
Enough with Tunisians in the streets of my town, thank you. ;)

[Peyrol]

And there's part of your answer. The Roman ethnicity evolved into a meta-ethnicity which still retained its name, i.e. Romance. That further split into the ethnicities that exist today. Obviously the Italians are closest, no one disputes that, but if they really regarded themselves as Romans, they would still call themselves Romans today (and "Italy" would be, as it was under the empire, a simple geographical expression). In short, instead of a country called Italy, we would have today a very similar country in the same place probably called Romania.

Yes, if Odoacer in 476 and Theoderik some years later would receives the title of "Princeps romani" or "Imperator gentis", instead the title of "King of Italy".

[Aces High]

The English stopped being successful after WWII.


Depends how you quantify success.
If anybody wants to get ahead in this mans world whats the first thing they have to learn...?...yes you got it the English language,yourself included.:cool:

Not a bad legacy.

[Wulfhere]

Yes, if Odoacer in 476 and Theoderik some years later would receives the title of "Princeps romani" or "Imperator gentis", instead the title of "King of Italy".

But he didn't though. For good reason.

[Peyrol]

Enough with Tunisians in the streets of my town, thank you. ;)

Tunisia would never exists, if the islam rested in Arabia and the postroman culture of North Africa will be developed.

Unfortunately, modern situation is different.:(

[alzo zero]

Tunisian would never exists, if the islam rested in Arabia and the postroman culture of North Africa will be developed.

Unfortunately, modern situation is different.:(
Yes culturally it would be something completely different. Racially...

[Peyrol]

But he didn't though. For good reason.

True.
And the title would pass to the "Basileion" in Bizantyum, creating the change of the name that exist also today.

[Wulfhere]

True.
And the title would pass to the "Basileion" in Bizantyum, creating the change of the name that exist also today.

I think an ethnic group with a strong self-identity would retain its name, even if someone else began using it too.

[GeistFaust]

I have always thought of the British as a successful and industrial people. I would contribute to them their great sense of pragmatic behavior and practicality. Usually a successful people have a certain sense of practicality about them. Unfortunately I think the British unlike the Germans carried their practicality to far and became over industrialized. The Germans meantime were able to be efficiently practical and have jobs completed in as proper a way as possible trying to keep the errors of a project to a minimum. I also do think of them as possessing a good work ethic was second to none. I also think the Dutch, Swedish, and Norwegians are up there as well. The British and Germans would be my top two though. The British produced a large quantity of successful people with decent quality. The Germans produced a high quantity of successful people who were of the highest quality. I think it is close to a tie but I give the edge to the Germans. This is Wahrheit. Klarheit?

[Peyrol]

I think an ethnic group with a strong self-identity would retain its name, even if someone else began using it too.
Indeed.
But you have also to remember that romans called the italian pupulation during the republic and the empire (that was a mix og greek, italic and latin pre-romanic populations) "Italico-Latines", while the iberians were called "Latino-iberici" and the 'french' "Gallo-romani".

[Wulfhere]

Indeed.
But you have also to remember that romans called the italian pupulation during the republic and the empire (that was a mix og greek, italic and latin pre-romanic populations) "Italico-Latines", while the iberians were called "Latino-iberici" and the 'french' "Gallo-romani".

I think if any single Roman ethnicity has survived at all, it has been debased into a regional identity of the City of Rome in Italy.

[StonyArabia]

Jews if you consider them part of Europe. If not it was the Scottish who after all they laid the foundation of the industrial revolution which made the British become the most successful global empire, sadly this was the beginning of globalization.

[Peyrol]

I would say also the French.

No Charlemagne, no Medieval Europe.

[Wulfhere]

I would say also the French.

No Charlemagne, no Medieval Europe.

Charlemagne wasn't French.

[Peyrol]

Charlemagne wasn't French.


No? Why is considered first King of France?

[Wulfhere]

No? Why is considered first King of France?

He's not so considered. He was, in fact, a Frank, a Germanic speaking tribal nation whose language is more closely related to Dutch than any other modern language.

[Peyrol]

He's not so considered. He was, in fact, a Frank, a Germanic speaking tribal nation whose language is more closely related to Dutch than any other modern language.

I personally would considerate the ethnogenesis of French (from the Frank) with the incoronation of Charlemagne.

Closed to the Dutch were the frankish spoken by the "Franchi Ripuari", not the frankish-latin (protofrench) spoken by Charlemagne, that was a member of the "Franchi Salii".

[Wulfhere]

I personally would considerate the ethnogenesis of French (from the Frank) with the incoronation of Charlemagne.

Closed to the Dutch were the frankish spoken by the "Franchi Ripuari", not the frankish-latin (protofrench) spoken by Charlemagne, that was a member of the "Franchi Salii".

Charlemagne spoke Frankish, a Germanic language, and since he is known to have been illiterate, it's very doubtful he could speak Latin. But even if he could, it was very far from being "proto-French". French ethnogenesis came some time after Charlemagne, when the Franks lost their language and fused with their Gallo-Roman subjects, bequeathing to them their name in the process.

[GeistFaust]

The Germans are called the land of the poets and thinkers for a reason not to mention other great characters. I can name a few off my head Kant, Goethe, Gauss, Hegel, Otto Von Bismark, Johannes Kepler, Martin Luther, Frederick I, Karl Benz, Rudolf Diesel, Grimm Brothers, Ludwig Beethoven, and Leibiniz.

[Peyrol]

Charlemagne spoke Frankish, a Germanic language, and since he is known to have been illiterate, it's very doubtful he could speak Latin. But even if he could, it was very far from being "proto-French". French ethnogenesis came some time after Charlemagne, when the Franks lost their language and fused with their Gallo-Roman subjects, bequeathing to them their name in the process.

He wrote some letters to the Papacy and the longobard King, so i think that he could speak latin.

[GeistFaust]

He wrote some letters to the Papacy and the longobard King, so i think that he could speak latin.

A lot of the educated elite wrote in Latin in those days it did not necessary make you a person that was non Germanic or Celtic.

[Wulfhere]

He wrote some letters to the Papacy and the longobard King, so i think that he could speak latin.

He had scribes and secretaries.

[Peyrol]

A lot of the educated elite wrote in Latin in those days it did not necessary make you a person that was non Germanic or Celtic.

Where i wrote that he wasn't germanic?

[GeistFaust]

Where i wrote that he wasn't germanic?

I did not say you did but I just wanted to clear that up in case I misunderstood what you were saying which appears not to be the case.

[Peyrol]

I did not say you did but I just wanted to clear that up in case I misunderstood what you were saying which appears not to be the case.

I've said that french language is a germanic latinized language, like all the french people, and that Charlemagne and the "Franchi Salii" latinized their language, while the "Franchi Ripuari" mantanis a strong and close germanic language.

[GeistFaust]

I've said that french language is a germanic latinized language, like all the french people, and that Charlemagne and the "Franchi Salii" latinized their language, while the "Franchi Ripuari" mantanis a strong and close germanic language.

I can not argue this.

[Wulfhere]

I've said that french language is a germanic latinized language, like all the french people, and that Charlemagne and the "Franchi Salii" latinized their language, while the "Franchi Ripuari" mantanis a strong and close germanic language.

They didn't so much Latinise their language as drop it altogether. A few Frankish words ended up in French though, such as bleu ("blue").

[Svanhild]

By matters of technology, science, philosophy, warfare, lyrics and impact on Europe I'd say the Germans are the most successful ethnicity.

[poiuytrewq0987]

By matters of technology, science, philosophy, warfare, lyrics and impact on Europe I'd say the Germans are the most successful ethnicity.

One could say the same about Russia.

[Black Sun Dimension]

Tough question indeed. Four spring to my mind as the most successful, which I'd rate in the following way:

1- English no doubt.
2- Tie between Germans and Russians
3- Italians

[Comte Arnau]

Charlemagne can be considered as the father of Europe, but not of the French, I agree with Wulfhere in this. An ethnic group has a distinct language, and ethnogeneses cannot precede the use of them.

Regarding the original question, well, in order to be minimally objective we'd have to share a common conception of what 'success' means. If we already disagree with it, no matter what we say because everybody is going to look out for number one, obviously.

[antonio]

I would say France, although I would not bet on them to have a future so bright and comfortable. Their originalities (let's call it grandeur) seem not to be working well at modern global world.

[Peerkons]

Germans.

[Peyrol]

Tough question indeed. Four spring to my mind as the most successful, which I'd rate in the following way:

1- English no doubt.
2- Tie between Germans and Russians
3- Italians

I agree.

1)English
2)Germans and French
3) Italians and Iberians

[Comte Arnau]

Europe is like the father who has two sons: a colder one, more pragmatical, who excells at exact sciences and lives in the North; and a warmer one, more idealist, who excells at arts and human sciences and lives in the South. Kill one of the two sons and Europe is incomplete.

[Grumpy Cat]

I'm going to say the English again, obviously, but would be interested to see the counter arguments.

:lol: The Romans had a glorious empire which became the very basis of Western civilization (which the English copied) while the English were uselessly pushing rocks to form circles.

[Ibericus]

Of course, spaniards.

http://diplomacyandpower.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/once-the-spanish-empire.jpg

[GeistFaust]

Of course, spaniards.

http://diplomacyandpower.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/once-the-spanish-empire.jpg

I think England had a bigger Empire so they have you beat in that department.

[GeistFaust]

By matters of technology, science, philosophy, warfare, lyrics and impact on Europe I'd say the Germans are the most successful ethnicity.

No doubt this is the truth the Germans were very gifted thinkers and a lot of their thinkers had a positive volkish and natural feel to them since a lot of the good ones came from peasant stock. Here is an excerpt written by Victor Hugo on the German geniuses. Also unlike the Germans their success was not overtly pragmatic and industrial like the English but had a poetical and transcendental vibe that could not be equalled by any other European peoples. http://www.gavroche.org/vhugo/shakespeare/shakespeare-1-2-4.shtml

[GeistFaust]

One could say the same about Russia.

The Russians were lacking a strong race consciousness since they are a mixed people this did not allow their ideas to solidify around a strong race consciousness which is most apparent in the German people. Also the Germans tended to produce more brilliant thinkers then most of the other European countries. This is probably due to them putting a higher emphasis on discipline and stringency in their intellectual pursuits then most other European countries.

[Ibericus]

I think England had a bigger Empire so they have you beat in that department.
Spain has also the best literature in the world, just a few examples :

Mio Cid, Lazarillo de Tormes, La Celestina, Quevedo, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, Luis de Góngora, Miguel de Cervantes, Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, José de Espronceda, Jóse de Larra, José Zorrilla, Adolfo Bécquer, Rosalía de Castro, Ramón de Campoamor, Pérez Galdós, Antonio Machado,

[Comte Arnau]

Spain has also the best literature in the world, just a few examples :

Mio Cid, Lazarillo de Tormes, La Celestina, Quevedo, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, Luis de Góngora, Miguel de Cervantes, Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, José de Espronceda, Jóse de Larra, José Zorrilla, Adolfo Bécquer, Rosalía de Castro, Ramón de Campoamor, Pérez Galdós, Antonio Machado,

Why don't I see Raymond Luly, Ausiàs March or Josep Pla in the examples? Ah... the subconscious. :p

[_______]

most are failing

[Foxy]

Since the Roman ethnicity didn't survive the fall of the empire for very long, the two events were obviously connected.

The impact of the invasions on the Roman ethnicity was almost null. We Italians are Romans who call themselves Italians. However before the reuinification of Italy it was discussed if it was better to call us "Romans" or "Italians". It was choosed Italians for modesty and becouse "Romans" seemed to indicate too much central Italians.
Latin, Italian and Roman are more or less the same thing.

[GeistFaust]

Spain has also the best literature in the world, just a few examples :

Mio Cid, Lazarillo de Tormes, La Celestina, Quevedo, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, Luis de Góngora, Miguel de Cervantes, Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, José de Espronceda, Jóse de Larra, José Zorrilla, Adolfo Bécquer, Rosalía de Castro, Ramón de Campoamor, Pérez Galdós, Antonio Machado,

I must say Spain produced quite a few good Artist and philosophers as well such Ortega Y Gasset and also George Santayana who was an Spanish American philosopher. Spain has had a very noble history for the most part. They definitely are much better then there neighbors the French who were more or less a punching bag for England and Germany. Also a lot of good music and lyrics come from Spain as well.

[GeistFaust]

most are failing

I agree the European spirit has been lost it needs to be rekindled in all of its fire before the ravenous Eastern barbarians quench its wonders and beauties each day though it is gradually falling into decay because of an atheistic idleness and an over emphasis on secular materialism.

[Magister Eckhart]

Spain has also the best literature in the world, just a few examples :

Mio Cid, Lazarillo de Tormes, La Celestina, Quevedo, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, Luis de Góngora, Miguel de Cervantes, Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, José de Espronceda, Jóse de Larra, José Zorrilla, Adolfo Bécquer, Rosalía de Castro, Ramón de Campoamor, Pérez Galdós, Antonio Machado,

... As much as I appreciate the Spaniards for their valiant and sustained defence of Europe from the Moorish hordes, "best literature in the world" is a stretch. The spiritual depth and ageless appeal of Germans from Wolfram von Eschenbach all the way down to Wolfgang von Goethe and Stefan George certainly puts the Germans ahead of the Spaniards in terms of literary contributions.

Spain's strengths as a cultural entity are largely religious and architectural, in my opinion.

[Ibericus]

... As much as I appreciate the Spaniards for their valiant and sustained defence of Europe from the Moorish hordes, "best literature in the world" is a stretch. The spiritual depth and ageless appeal of Germans from Wolfram von Eschenbach all the way down to Wolfgang von Goethe and Stefan George certainly puts the Germans ahead of the Spaniards in terms of literary contributions.

Spain's strengths as a cultural entity are largely religious and architectural, in my opinion.
Well, that's of course your opinion. I don't agree at all :) .

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, that's of course your opinion. I don't agree at all :) .

Given how much your people have grown in my affection since joining this board, I'm actually willing to agree to disagree on this point. :)

[Foxy]

Culturally I think Italy & Germany. Politically England and Spain. France is cool only becouse it's in the middle. :D:coffee:

[GeistFaust]

Culturally I think Italy & Germany. Politically England and Spain. France is cool only becouse it's in the middle. :D:coffee:

I would have to agree although you know I think most of politics is a sham and a circus so that does not abode well for the Spanish and English in my mind. I think culture is the highest pursuit of a man in a social setting so if you want to classify who is best in that way Italy and Germany would top England and Spain. France is just a punching bag for other nations just when we get tired of going to war with each other its nice to lay it hard on France.

[Wulfhere]

:lol: The Romans had a glorious empire which became the very basis of Western civilization (which the English copied) while the English were uselessly pushing rocks to form circles.

I think you've got your chronology a bit wrong, there. Whilst the "English" (or in fact the then inhabitants of the British Isles) were pushing rocks around to form circles, such as Stonehenge, the Egyptians were still in the planning stages of building the pyramids.

[Wulfhere]

The impact of the invasions on the Roman ethnicity was almost null. We Italians are Romans who call themselves Italians. However before the reuinification of Italy it was discussed if it was better to call us "Romans" or "Italians". It was choosed Italians for modesty and becouse "Romans" seemed to indicate too much central Italians.
Latin, Italian and Roman are more or less the same thing.

No, I'm afraid they aren't. An ethnicity doesn't change it's name.

[Cato]

I'd say this:

1) Celtic-Germanic.
2) Romance.

With the strong reminder that #1 is the top dog because of the cultural and historical influence of #2.

[GeistFaust]

I'd say this:

1) Celtic-Germanic.
2) Romance.

With the strong reminder that #1 is the top dog because of the cultural and historical influence of #2.

I would completely agree with this it has my seal of approval. :thumb001:

[Wulfhere]

I would have to agree although you know I think most of politics is a sham and a circus so that does not abode well for the Spanish and English in my mind. I think culture is the highest pursuit of a man in a social setting so if you want to classify who is best in that way Italy and Germany would top England and Spain. France is just a punching bag for other nations just when we get tired of going to war with each other its nice to lay it hard on France.

I'm really not sure how it's possible to say that Germany, France or Spain, or whatever, has had a "higher" culture than England. In terms of philosophy, literature, poetry, or what? Who cares?

[Cato]

I would completely agree with this it has my seal of approval. :thumb001:

Modern European civilization and history doesn't exist within a vacuum. This is also true for the European legacy in the New World. It's an interplay of Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavic, etc. The classical world was centered on the Mediterranean, whereas the post-classical world began to focus itself on the Germanic lands.

As an American, let me give you an example: the United States, which has an Anglosaxon/Angloceltic background (of course), but also a Gallic and Iberian background. Sadly, the Gallic influence on the U.S. is overplayed whereas that of Spain isn't really known very widely. The Spanish had boots on the ground, commanded by a Don named de Galvez, who fought side-by-side with the Colonial Army. New Spain was supplying the colonists with powder, muskets, musket balls, foodstuffs, etc. even before Spain declared war on Britain. :)

This is what I mean, the great interplay of the European-descended peoples doesn't exist with a vacuum.

[GeistFaust]

Modern European civilization and history doesn't exist within a vacuum. This is also true for the European legacy in the New World. It's an interplay of Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavic, etc. The classical world was centered on the Mediterranean, whereas the post-classical world began to focus itself on the Germanic lands.

As an American, let me give you an example: the United States, which has an Anglosaxon/Angloceltic background (of course), but also a Gallic and Iberian background. Sadly, the Gallic influence on the U.S. is overplayed whereas that of Spain isn't really known very widely. The Spanish had boots on the ground, commanded by a Don named de Galvez, who fought side-by-side with the Colonial Army. New Spain was supplying the colonists with powder, muskets, musket balls, foodstuffs, etc. even before Spain declared war on Britain. :)

This is what I mean, the great interplay of the European-descended peoples doesn't exist with a vacuum.


I contribute the greatness of America to Englishmen and Anglo Irish people who built the original framework of America and to no one else. You can give the Spanish credit for exploring the Americas but nothing more. They never helped in any with constructing the system whether it be politically or religiously.

[GeistFaust]

I'm really not sure how it's possible to say that Germany, France or Spain, or whatever, has had a "higher" culture than England. In terms of philosophy, literature, poetry, or what? Who cares?

Perhaps you are too absorbed in your Industrialism to get look beyond the surface. England had a high culture but it was too superficial for me all full of pompous that lacked a transcendental element which had a poetical orientation on it. In terms of philosophy, literature, poetry, science, technology, and inventions the Germans edged the English in all of these categories. The Ideas about evolution were not English at all they were first talked about by German philosophers.

[Wulfhere]

Perhaps you are too absorbed in your Industrialism to get look beyond the surface. England had a high culture but it was too superficial for me all full of pompous that lacked a transcendental element which had a poetical orientation on it. In terms of philosophy, literature, poetry, science, technology, and inventions the Germans edged the English in all of these categories. The Ideas about evolution were not English at all they were first talked about by German philosophers.

Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by "transcendental"?

[GeistFaust]

Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by "transcendental"?

By transcendental I mean a culture that is not just simply and purely pragmatic in its way but has its a certain ambience about it that resonates the divine instincts which are so rarely expressed by the peoples of Europe except that of the Germans.

[Wulfhere]

By transcendental I mean a culture that is not just simply and purely pragmatic in its way but has its a certain ambience about it that resonates the divine instincts which are so rarely expressed by the peoples of Europe except that of the Germans.

No, sorry, I don't understand.

[Comte Arnau]

As much as I like German literature, I don't think it can be compared to English and French ones. In terms of novel production, specially, it is more than obvious, and even Russian would go ahead of it. Germans have been much more successful in the novella genre.

If it is about non-fiction production, though - philosophical treatises, philological studies... - then Germans certainly win by far.

[Lábaru]

Not the Romans though, because their ethnicity no longer exists.

Again, are not he Italians enough blondes for you? too dark? as your ancestors from the islands that you hide? ashamed? Mr-Germanic?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Russia is, why? They managed to retain control of colonial Russia, continue to have an incredible space program, its economy surging ahead with Putin promising the Russians to establish an average salary of $35,000 for Russians. The country is chock full with philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, inventors and many more. Russia is the future not Germany or Britain where they are being swarmed with Pakis and Turks.

[Gaztelu]

Again, are not he Italians enough blondes for you? too dark? as your ancestors from the islands that you hide? ashamed? Mr-Germanic?

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee13/joanwohl/Oh_noes.gif

As for the topic of this thread, there is no answer. The definition of success is relative. The Russians can be eligible for the most successful ethnicity because they are currently the most powerful nation in Europe. The British and the Spanish can be contenders because of their legacies throughout the world. The Germans can be contenders because of their contributions in the fields of mathematics and science and their technological know-how. The Greeks also have their legacy as being the cradle of Western civilization. Even the Nordics can be contenders because of the high standards of living in those countries. Every country has its flaws and its strengths. Arguing about petty nonsense will not change anything.

[GeistFaust]

Russia is, why? They managed to retain control of colonial Russia, continue to have an incredible space program, its economy surging ahead with Putin promising the Russians to establish an average salary of $35,000 for Russians. The country is chock full with philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, inventors and many more. Russia is the future not Germany or Britain where they are being swarmed with Pakis and Turks.

Forget Me Not there is one downfall of the Russians though which have not removed but is still a parasite waiting to fester up again and that is communism. Germany and Britain will get back on their feet when we have strong people leading the people once again it might take a social revolution or axial turn of sorts to create a social earthquake to awaken the populous. But I can imagine that good Englishmen and Germans will not tolerate the hordes from the East anymore and they will stand up with their noble instincts hopefully and drive those gutter rats back to their holes! The English and Germans have brought on their own demise though with giving themselves over to birth control and contraceptives so I am not saying it is not all their fault but I would hope in the end the good guys win over the bad guys.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Forget Me Not there is one downfall of the Russians though which have not removed but is still a parasite waiting to fester up again and that is communism. Germany and Britain will get back on their feet when we have strong people leading the people once again it might take a social revolution or axial turn of sorts to create a social earthquake to awaken the populous. But I can imagine that good Englishmen and Germans will not tolerate the hordes from the East anymore and they will stand up with their noble instincts hopefully and drive those gutter rats back to their holes! The English and Germans have brought on their own demise though with giving themselves over to birth control and contraceptives so I am not saying it is not all their fault but I would hope in the end the good guys win over the bad guys.

Um what? Communism's been dead since 1991. The form of government that's running Russia is statist, not necessarily communist.

[GeistFaust]

Um what? Communism's been dead since 1991. The form of government that's running Russia is statist, not necessarily communist.

Communism will rise again it is not dead yet just watch and wait.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Communism will rise again it is not dead yet just watch and wait.

Spoken like a true American. :laugh: Better resurrect McCarthy, eh?

[GeistFaust]

Spoken like a true American. :laugh: Better resurrect McCarthy, eh?

Maybe the gauntlet of communism is weighs to heavily over Eastern Europe to see that it is still not dead. It is gone for now but it is going to come back. Maybe I am just paranoid about Russia but I doubt those easterners will amount to anything noble or wondrous anyway since communism has eaten away at anything that was once good in Russia.

[safinator]

Germans with Brits coming second.

[Supreme American]

Germans with Brits coming second.

Other way around.

[Supreme American]

Spoken like a true American. :laugh: Better resurrect McCarthy, eh?

Too bad we can't. This country is being culturally and morally undermined by Marxist and Marxist-inspired social theory, and people have no idea where it's coming from, how invalid it is, or how dangerous it is.

[rashka]

Germans with Brits coming second.

Is that because you're Celto-German? :D :wink:wink:wink :p

[Sebastianus Rex]

This is subjective because it depends on the historical period, in a simple way here's what i think:

- Antiquity: Greeks and Romans
- Middle Ages: Franks and Bizantines
- Renaissance: Spanish and French
- Industrial Age: British and Germans
- After WW2: Germans and Russians

For instance the british built a huge empire, controlling more than 33 million km2 but as a nation they are finished, they will not resist to mass immigration and will become mongrels in one generation. More than 10 million non-whites, the highest race mixing in Europe and non-stop immigration, it's a lost case.

Same could be said for other countries, especially the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Belgium are not looking good also. They will become mongrel countries without ethnic identity within the next generation.

Eastern Europe (particulary Russia) has the best chance of surviving the Globalization.

Within Western Europe i think Italy has the best chance (because the people is more xenophobic than in any other western nation). About the others we will see.

[Mago]

1.English 2.French 3.German 4.Spain
Germany got messed up because of the nazis otherwise they would have been in first place today.

[Peyrol]

Tuscans.

Renaissance and Scientific Method, bases of modern West.

[Anarch]

English and Germans, easily.

[Methmatician]

Either the English or the Germans.

[kabeiros]

It has to be the Jews :D
They have managed to make Europeans see them as God's people on earth, which is pretty impressive by it self.

[Linet]

I ll go with the Jews too :ohwell:...no matter who helped the world culturaly :boohoo: or who will find the cure for cancer :humble: ....they have still powed us all :flamed:through religion :fpope: and USA is their lap-dog :dog00000:. They rule the world :biggrin ....lets just face it....:(

[Bobcat Fraser]

The Germans have the most brain *and* brawn when you look at both the scholars and the athletes that originated in Deutschland. The German economy, as well as its innovations, are nothing to sneeze at, either. Then, you have the composers, the best in the history of the world if you count them as a group. Add the millions of German Americans to the mix, and it's hard to argue against them.

[Incal]

Germans and Italians.

[Hong Key]

Germans produced Franks, Normans, Lombards, Angles, Saxons, etc...

Don’t forget England is Angle Land, France in named after Franks

Just my opinion.

[Contra Mundum]

On inventions and discoveries alone, it has to be the English and Germans. This is not even debatable. They are by far the two must successful. Overall, I would give a slight edge to the English, because of their global reach, and English is the language of the world.

The question is, who is third. That's where the real debate would be.

The Scots probably achieved the most per capita.

[Contra Mundum]

I ll go with the Jews too :ohwell:...no matter who helped the world culturaly :boohoo: or who will find the cure for cancer :humble: ....they have still powed us all :flamed:through religion :fpope: and USA is their lap-dog :dog00000:. They rule the world :biggrin ....lets just face it....:(

They're only as strong as their host.

[Osprey]

The fucking Jews have the power, but the most successful are the Germanics.

[Bobcat Fraser]

The fucking Jews have the power, but the most successful are the Germanics.

How do the celibate Jews fare? My guess is that they're too frustrated to be powerful.

[Bobcat Fraser]

On inventions and discoveries alone, it has to be the English and Germans. This is not even debatable. They are by far the two must successful. Overall, I would give a slight edge to the English, because of their global reach, and English is the language of the world.

The question is, who is third. That's where the real debate would be.

The Scots probably achieved the most per capita.

What if one counted the British Isles as a whole unit? Combine the British and Irish contributions. Make sure to remember cultural achievements. In that case, it might be at the top of the list.

[Osprey]

How do the celibate Jews fare? My guess is that they're too frustrated to be powerful.

Jews have a tendency to be 'successfull at any cost'. That does not include hardwork or ideas, but stealing and directing.
A really intelligent, hardworking intern who discovered something will not be given enough credit if his corrupt teacher intervenes when it comes to taking acknwoldgement.

[Osprey]

What if one counted the British Isles as a whole unit? Combine the British and Irish contributions. Make sure to remember cultural achievements. In that case, it might be at the top of the list.

Then count Germany, Luxmeborg, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Austria as one unit.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Jews have a tendency to be 'successfull at any cost'. That does not include hardwork or ideas, but stealing and directing.
A really intelligent, hardworking intern who discovered something will not be given enough credit if his corrupt teacher intervenes when it comes to taking acknwoldgement.

I was just kidding. I got about four hours of sleep this weekend, so I feel a bit spacey.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Then count Germany, Luxmeborg, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Austria as one unit.

It would give the British Isles a run for its money. A combination of southern European countries would too.

[Contra Mundum]

What if one counted the British Isles as a whole unit? Combine the British and Irish contributions. Make sure to remember cultural achievements. In that case, it might be at the top of the list.

I have the English at the top with Germany close behind. I didn't combine the English with other ethnic groups in the UK because the ranking was not by country, but by ethnicity. Now that I think of it, we should include those of English descent in America, Canada, Australia and other places around the world. That would only solidify English dominance as not only Europe's most successful ethnicity, but the most successful in world history.

[ficuscarica]

English & Germans, in general Germanic peoples. Germanic peoples have been the superior ethnic groups - not only in Europe, but in the whole world - for the last centuries. And they still are. Obviously.

[Insuperable]

If you think the most successful in science its Germany ( slight tiny edge goes to Germany ) and Britain followed by France, Russia and Italy.

However it is not fair to compare for example Germany and Liechtenstein or France and San Marino.

So if we are going to look by the ratio of contributions to science and size of populations Austrians for sure beat everyone in Europe and if we are going to count Ashkenazis as separate group the ratio of their contributions to science and the size of population beat Austrians and everybody else there of.

[Contra Mundum]

If you think the most successful in science its Germany ( slight tiny edge goes to Germany ) and Britain followed by France, Russia and Italy.

However it is not fair to compare for example Germany and Liechtenstein or France and San Marino.

So if we are going to look by the ratio of contributions to science and size of populations Austrians for sure beat everyone in Europe and if we are going to count Ashkenazis as separate group the ratio of their contributions to science and the size of population beat Austrians and everybody else there of.

It's hard to properly rate Ashkenazis as a people because they haven't achieved much outside of a Germanic country. The Germanics are the most accomplished people on the planet and Jews piggy back off them. It's easier to achieve something when your host created the infrastructure and political and educational system for you. Without Germanics and other Europeans, the Jews would have accomplished nothing of note outside of religion.

[Stefan]

"Successful in what?" is a crucial question. In terms of inventions, and innovations I'd say the Anglo-sphere and Germano-sphere (if such a word can be used) are quite supreme. They were large entities though. In the case of the first; it was a matter of imperialism and very large populations, as well as wealth. In the case of the second; it was also large populations, but in the form of cultural diffusion. Historically, there were successful peoples in Southern Europe as well, for this particular orientation. In the case of exploration, and colonization, I'd say: England, Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands in that order. That is, if we're going to measure it by number of diaspora and cultural influence outside of Europe, and even within. Then there are matters of less objective cultural feats, like visual art and music; which seems to be ordered around Catholic Europe, particularly Italy, France, Spain, and Austria. We can list other qualities, and also examine successes in those fields as well, depending on time period and context.

[Damião de Góis]

So if we are going to look by the ratio of contributions to science and size of populations Austrians for sure beat everyone in Europe and if we are going to count Ashkenazis as separate group the ratio of their contributions to science and the size of population beat Austrians and everybody else there of.

What science do you mean? While studying maths and physics i don't remember coming across any austrian.

[ficuscarica]

Hundreds of thousands tried or try to come to the Germanic (that means Anglo countries as well ofc) countries, including South Europeans. Therefore next topic please. :) It is obvious.

[Insuperable]

It's hard to properly rate Ashkenazis as a people because they haven't achieved much outside of a Germanic country. The Germanics are the most accomplished people on the planet and Jews piggy back off them. It's easier to achieve something when your host created the infrastructure and political and educational system for you. Without Germanics and other Europeans, the Jews would have accomplished nothing of note outside of religion.

It is hard to apply "piggy back off" to geniuses. Not everyone can be genius no matter how good infrastructure and political and educational system is but there is some truth to what you say I ll say but after all geniuses are born and made during lifetime not only made.
Have in mind that I am not happy because of this Ashkenazi success and if I could change it I would but unfortunately that is the truth.

[Damião de Góis]

Hundreds of thousands tried or try to come to the Germanic (that means Anglo countries as well ofc) countries, including South Europeans. Therefore next topic please. :) It is obvious.

Tried? What do you mean?

[ficuscarica]

Tried? What do you mean?

Well, they did. That´s what I meant.

[Contra Mundum]

It is hard to apply "piggy back off" to geniuses. Not everyone can be genius no matter how good infrastructure and political and educational system is but there is some truth to what you say I ll say but after all geniuses are born and made during lifetime not only made.
Have in mind that I am not happy because of this Ashkenazi success and if I could change it I would but unfortunately that is the truth.

There are geniuses in every group. There are very intelligent black people too, but as a whole, they would be living in poverty were they not in a mostly white country. The same applies to the Jews.

[Damião de Góis]

Well, they did. That´s what I meant.

I'm not sure what you meant. You meant immigration? If so then i would say southern europeans have immigrated more to south america than to germanic countries in Europe.

[Stefan]

Hundreds of thousands tried or try to come to the Germanic (that means Anglo countries as well ofc) countries, including South Europeans. Therefore next topic please. :) It is obvious.

To be fair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_migration_to_Spain


British migration to Spain has resulted in Spain being home to one of the largest British-born populations outside of the United Kingdom. Migration from the UK to Spain has increased rapidly since the late 1990s and the British population of Spain in 2006 was estimated to be about 761,000 (more than twenty-five times the population of Gibraltar).[1][2] Of these, according to the BBC and contrary to popular belief, only about 21.5% are over the age of 65.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards_in_the_United_Kingdom


The 2001 UK Census recorded 54,482 Spanish-born people.[1] 54,105 of these were resident in Great Britain (that is, the UK excluding Northern Ireland).[3] The equivalent figure in the 1991 Census was 38,606.[3] The census tracts with the highest numbers of Spanish-born residents in 2001 were Kensington, Regent's Park and Chelsea, all in west London.[3] The regional spread within Great Britain is given in the table.

[ficuscarica]

I'm not sure what you meant. You meant immigration? If so then i would say southern europeans have immigrated more to south america than to germanic countries in Europe.

Yes, I meant immigration. Spanish and Portuguese people are a different story, because they had emmigration alternatives where they could speak their own language and where there was a lot of empty space. But we had mass immigration of Italians and Greeks to Germany and to the US for example.

[ficuscarica]

Stefan, the British go to the Spain because of the wheather, not because Spain is more successful. It is more like a German old man who buys a house in Thailand because it is cheap and he likes the warmth. This has nothing to do with success.

[Damião de Góis]

Yes, I meant immigration. Spanish and Portuguese people are a different story, because they had emmigration alternatives where they could speak their own language and where there was a lot of empty space. But we had mass immigration of Italians and Greeks to Germany and to the US for example.

USA yes but i was only thinking of Germanic countries in Europe, Germans have emigrated to the USA also. And about italians in south america, think of Argentina or Brazil. So my point was that southern europeans have gone more to south america than to Germany, UK or Sweden.

[Balmung]

I got an idea who were the most successful:

Europeans.

But OT: English, Scots, & Germans.

Getting your culture/language and genetics all around the world: English & Scots, most like.

Crucial inventions that we all use today: Germans, English, & Scots.

It should be noted that even today England & Germany are pretty high up there in terms of scientific output and its no doubting that the English, Scots, & Germans contributed heavily to the development of the United States into a power.

[ficuscarica]

USA yes but i was only thinking of Germanic countries in Europe, Germans have emigrated to the USA also. And about italians in south america, think of Argentina or Brazil. So my point was that southern europeans have gone more to south america than to Germany, UK or Sweden.

Well, what you say is true. The "new world" just offered a lot of freedom an opportunities.
However, there is still a clear tendency of Southern Europeans coming to Northern Europe for economical reasons in the last decades. The same is not true the other way round. Yes, some North Europeans went to Southern Europe, but that is usually because they want warmer weather, not because these countries are more successful.

I mean you could also simply check which EU countries need financial support and from which countries they get the support.

This probably sounds offending, but to me it is clear that for about 100 years the Germanic/Anglo countries have outcompeted South European countries.

[Damião de Góis]

Well, what you say is true. The "new world" just offered a lot of freedom an opportunities.
However, there is still a clear tendency of Southern Europeans coming to Northern Europe for economical reasons in the last decades. The same is not true the other way round. Yes, some North Europeans went to Southern Europe, but that is usually because they want warmer weather, not because these countries are more successful.

I mean you could also simply check which EU countries need financial support and from which countries they get the support.

This probably sounds offending, but to me it is clear that for about 100 years the Germanic/Anglo countries have outcompeted South European countries.

Yeah it's true, but that doesn't mean southern Europe isn't a good place to live. Norway is doing better than Germany but i doubt germans want to move there in mass.
I don't feel like leaving Lisbon to go to Scotland or Denmark or whatever. Life is good here :coffee:

[Stefan]

Stefan, the British go to the Spain because of the wheather, not because Spain is more successful. It is more like a German old man who buys a house in Thailand because it is cheap and he likes the warmth. This has nothing to do with success.

Would you say these people are emigrating because they'll have a better life in Northern and Central European nations? What about Northern/Central Europeans who emigrate to another Northern European nation?

For example;


The 2001 UK Census recorded 266,136 German-born people, making them the fourth-largest foreign-born group after Irish, Indians and Pakistanis.[2] A large proportion of these people are thought to be the children of British military based in Germany at the time of their birth, who have since returned to the UK with their families.[3][4][5] Wiltshire, Colchester, North Yorkshire and Aldershot, which are all home to significant army populations, had a combined German-born population of 12,000.[3] The Office for National Statistics estimates that in 2009, there were 295,000 German-born people living in the UK but only 112,000 German nationals.[6] Other than in areas with army bases, German-born population clusters are found in west London, particularly around Richmond, where there is a German school.[3]

While only 112,000 of them were German nationals, that is still double the Spanish number cited earlier.

[Insuperable]

What science do you mean? While studying maths and physics i don't remember coming across any austrian.

Well you studied probably basic physics and mathematics on college I presume studied by engineers or whatever.

For example

Zeilinger
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55696&page=3

Markus Aspelmeyer, Peter Zoller, Zeilinger are pioneers who are still alive ( and many more ) and you probably have not heard of them.

You had to hear about Ludwig Boltzmann, Christian Doppler, Ernst Mach, Victor Hess if you have studied basic physics

Regarding mathematicians you probably never heard of Edmund Hlawka, Hans Hahn, Immanuel Bomze, Johan Radon....

and I could name more as much as you like and still not talk about pioneers in medicine, chemistry....

However there are also a lot of Jews in Austrian science so I did not think through I admit but yet again there is also probably in other Euro countries so maybe Austrians will still be on top:noidea:

[ficuscarica]

Afaik Norway is doing better than Germany because they have a lot of oil. I wouldn´t call the Saudis successful, either (although I don´t want to say that Norwegians and Saudis are the same ;)).

Well, there are a lot of reasons for a person to move or not to move and if someone is happy in his country of course he doesn´t move to another country. Obviously many, many South Europeans that came here were not really happy. Otherwise they would not have left their homes. And if it was better "at home" they wouldn´t build/buy their houses here, like many Italians do it.

But we are going a bit off-topic with this.

[Damião de Góis]

Well you studied probably basic physics and mathematics on college I presume studied by engineers or whatever.


Yes. I had more maths than physics though but i don't know any of the people you mentioned. I came across mostly french and german mathematicians.

[ficuscarica]

Would you say these people are emigrating because they'll have a better life in Northern and Central European nations? What about Northern/Central Europeans who emigrate to another Northern European nation?

For example;



While only 112,000 of them were German nationals, that is still double the Spanish number cited earlier.

I don´t know the details about it. But Germany and the UK have about the same "success" as countries. Really, it is quite simple: Just look which EU countries are going down and therefore asking other for help. Then look who those helpers are and the question of this thread is answered. Further doubts? Check who built the US. ;)

[Comte Arnau]

Stefan, the British go to the Spain because of the wheather, not because Spain is more successful. It is more like a German old man who buys a house in Thailand because it is cheap and he likes the warmth. This has nothing to do with success.

And what is success? Breaking your back working in a depressing place? :confused:

[ficuscarica]

And what is success? Breaking your back working in a depressing place? :confused:

Well, I think it more success than asking those who are willing to do something for help because your country is basically done. ;)
No pain, no gain.

Of course everyone can lay on his lazy back, make siesta and then claim financial aid and laugh about those who actually work. This can be seen as kind of success, yes.

[Damião de Góis]

Of course everyone can lay on his lazy back, make siesta and then claim financial aid and laugh about those who actually work. This can be seen as kind of success, yes.

Do you think that actually works in real life? :D
Hard working germans make bank transfers to siesta taking spaniards? I work ridiculous amounts of hours (not now because i'm on vacations :D) and there are no siestas here. I never received any transfer from any hard working german tax payer either. All i have, i worked for it.

[Stefan]

I don´t know the details about it. But Germany and the UK have about the same "success" as countries. Really, it is quite simple: Just look which EU countries are going down and therefore asking other for help.

My argument was solely one against your claim that emmigration implies low-success, or vice-versa. There are plenty of reasons to emigrate that don't entail economic problems. Furthermore, economies change drastically in a short period of time. More static means of measurements entail things like science, inventions, innovations, etc which of course, I gave to Anglo-sphere and Germanic Central Europe anyway.


Then look who those helpers are and the question of this thread is answered. Further doubts? Check who built the US. ;)

Who built the U.S? Americans! No outsider has claims to building this country, although they can claim influence. In fact, the precise reason why the U.S became a country was because Americans were treated as second-rate citizens and the 'mother country' implemented high taxes. As for Germans in the U.S; they left because of religious persecution and instability, and while I look up to my German ancestors more than anybody else, they were quite a nuisance for the Anglo-Americans back in the day, due to their lack of assimilation.

[Insuperable]

Yes. I had more maths than physics though but i don't know any of the people you mentioned. I came across mostly french and german mathematicians.

You never mentioned Boltzmann, Doppler, Hess or Mach? That is hard to believe.

Regarding mathematics, I know what you are talking about since I am about to get a masters in electrical engineering soon.
You should have to come accross British, German, French, Swiss and Italian mathematicians but
The mathematics taught by engineers today makes a small part of mathematics today and THEN. You and I are not informed about it because mathematics has gone long way in the last hundred years and it is not possible how many different fields have been opened and are opening and plus we learn only part of 17th. 18th and 19th century mathematics.

[Dandelion]

Economically the Germans. Culturally the English, followed by the French.

[Comte Arnau]

Do you think that actually works in real life? :D
Hard working germans make bank transfers to siesta taking spaniards? I work ridiculous amounts of hours (not now because i'm on vacations :D) and there are no siestas here. I never received any transfer from any hard working german tax payer either. All i have, i worked for it.

Germans work less. It doesn't have anything to do with all that cheap propaganda they eat up there.

Although I understand the Germans, because it's actually the same thing we say about Andalusians. Obviously we Catalans are fucked up because the squareheads put us all in the same pack. That is why independence is so necessary, and the same could be said for Northern Italy.

[ficuscarica]

Stefan, the Northern European economy has been superior to the Southern European economy for half a century now. At the moment, Germanics are therefore the most successful ethnicity in Europe.

Concerning the US: I don´t claim that the US´ achievements are German achievements, but in the largest parts they are obviously achievements of Germanics (English and German). The Germanic peoples therefore have produced the most successful countries both in nowadays´ Europe and in nowadays´ world. Of course this can change, and ironically(?) a possible downfall is accompanied by a massive influx of non-Germanics.

[Damião de Góis]

You never mentioned Boltzmann, Doppler, Hess or Mach? That is hard to believe.

Regarding mathematics, I know what you are talking about since I am about to get a masters in electrical engineering soon.
You should have to come accross British, German, French, Swiss and Italian mathematicians but
The mathematics taught by engineers today makes a small part of mathematics today and THEN. You and I are not informed about it because mathematics has gone long way in the last hundred years and it is not possible how many different fields have been opened and are opening and plus we learn only part of 17th. 18th and 19th century mathematics.

My physics was limited to basic mechanics and basic electromagnetism. It was jut two courses. I had 6 or 7 (?) maths courses on the other hand.
And yes i could list names from all those countries... but not Austria. Regarding maths, i would say France has the most names i know.

[Damião de Góis]

Germans work less. It doesn't have anything to do with all that cheap propaganda they eat up there.

Although I understand the Germans, because it's actually the same thing we say about Andalusians. Obviously we Catalans are fucked up because the squareheads put us all in the same pack. That is why independence is so necessary, and the same could be said for Northern Italy.

Yes, Porto people also say that they work and we in Lisbon spend. Which is actually funny :p

[Comte Arnau]

Yes, Porto people also say that they work and we in Lisbon spend. Which is actually funny :p

Everybody works, and Southerners work a lot more. The problem is the output. More hours don't necessarily mean better production.

Yes, there are wrong stereotypes everywhere, although I lived for a while in Andalusia and I know the lifestyle down there, a world of its own. Some people think they can be subsided forever, and even dare call others stupid because we work and they spend it. Not saying everybody is like this there, but there is a serious difference in the way of understanding what work is.

[Stefan]

Stefan, the Northern European economy has been superior to the Southern European economy for half a century now. At the moment, Germanics are therefore the most successful ethnicity in Europe.

That's quite a small portion of history, don't you think? Although, I suppose in the context of the real world, economy is far more important, and of course such a status is quite dynamic. Which makes one wonder if it is a matter of inherent superiority or social factors. The latter seems far more likely. However, I'd take a far more culturally stable state than an economically stable one.



Concerning the US: I don´t claim that the US´ achievements are German achievements, but in the largest parts they are obviously achievements of Germanics (English and German). The Germanic peoples therefore have produced the most successful countries both in nowadays´ Europe and in nowadays´ world. Of course this can change, and ironically(?) a possible downfall is accompanied by a massive influx of non-Germanics.

It's more accurate to say it is the influx of non-Americans than non-Germanics. The Spanish have been in the West since before it was part of America. The French were in Louisiana territory as well. New York has had an Italian majority for many years now. The Irish (celts) are a strong majority in certain regions as well. All of these people have contributed to the whole that is America. Of course, what you say is right in regards to the two overwhelmingly major contributors, but it isn't because they were Germanic. It was because they were American.

[Insuperable]

My physics was limited to basic mechanics and basic electromagnetism. It was jut two courses. I had 6 or 7 (?) maths courses on the other hand.
And yes i could list names from all those countries... but not Austria. Regarding maths, i would say France has the most names i know.

I know but its basic "higher" math studied by almost everyone today.

To give you a better picture

The mathematics learned by engineers in 2 years is taught to mathematicians mostly through the first year of college. Now you can only imagine what can be learned to reach the Phd and how many optional subjects there are to choose and how many different orientations there are to choose ( and how many times ) when studying mathematics.
Do you get the picture now?

[Damião de Góis]

Everybody works, and Southerners work a lot more. The problem is the output. More hours don't necessarily mean better production.

Yes, there are wrong stereotypes everywhere, although I lived for a while in Andalusia and I know the lifestyle down there, a world of its own. Some people think they can be subsided forever, and even dare call others stupid because we work and they spend it. Not saying everybody is like this there, but there is a serious difference in the way of understanding what work is.

I don't know, i can't speak for Andaluzia. But if GDP is a good indicator if people work and produce or not then it's clear that this is the case with Madrid, Basque Country, Catalunya and Lisbon as far as Iberia is concerned. Maybe Aragon too.

In this case Extremadura would be worse than Andaluzia, who have tourism.

[Damião de Góis]

I know but its basic "higher" math studied by almost everyone today.

To give you a better picture

The mathematics learned by engineers in 2 years is taught to mathematicians mostly through the first year of college. Now you can only imagine what can be learned to reach the Phd and how many optional subjects there are to choose and how many different orientations there are to choose ( and how many times ) when studying mathematics.
Do you get the picture now?

So the austrian mathematicians all come in more advanced maths? That's why i don't know them? Are they more than the french?

[ficuscarica]

That's quite a small portion of history, don't you think? Although, I suppose in the context of the real world, economy is far more important, and of course such a status is quite dynamic. Which makes one wonder if it is a matter of inherent superiority or social factors. The latter seems far more likely. However, I'd take a far more culturally stable state than an economically stable one.


Probably you can go back a bit farther, maybe one hundred years. This would be around four generations, which admittedly is still not much. But to me the current situation is the most important. Otherwise, I could consider the Iraqis to be superior over Germans, because of the Babylonian empire. Or I could say Egypts are superior because of the Pharaonic age. Both would be ridiculous.
And in a sense the same applies to a comparison between Southern European and Northern European ethnicities. We, our parents and our grandparents - all generations we are directly connected with - live in a world of "Germanic superiority".

Also, Germanic countries are known as safer and less corrupt places compared to many Southern European countries, which indicates superiority and stability in cultural aspects which are really important (opposed to cultures that are mainly based on being proud of what happened thousands of years ago).

I think both inherent qualities and the surrounding play a role for the success of an ethnicity, but this would be an extremely complicated discussion.


It's more accurate to say it is the influx of non-Americans than non-Germanics. The Spanish have been in the West since before it was part of America. The French were in Louisiana territory as well. New York has had an Italian majority for many years now. The Irish (celts) are a strong majority in certain regions as well. All of these people have contributed to the whole that is America. Of course, what you say is right in regards to the two overwhelmingly major contributors, but it isn't because they were Germanic. It was because they were American.

I don´t think this passage is correct. While there always were other minorities (which sometimes formed a majority in certain regions) the absolutely dominant factor in the US was an Anglo-Germanic culture. This is know changing for the first time in the US history. And I fear that it will have bad effects for the US.

[ficuscarica]

All that being sad I am talking about averages (which is what the thread title asks for), not about individuals. Obviously a Germanic can and often will be dumber, lazier, less trust-worthy and so on than an Italian or Greek.

[Insuperable]

So the austrian mathematicians all come in more advanced maths? That's why i don't know them? Are they more than the french?

There are also too many French and Germans, and Brits and Russians, Dutch, Swedes, Italians, Americans... you name it in mathematics studied in higher years on math University.
Yes of course that there are more French than Austrians but there are too many French than Austrians in terms of the size in population and that is why I was talking about the ration in the first place.

[Stefan]

Probably you can go back a bit farther, maybe one hundred years. This would be around four generations, which admittedly is still not much. But to me the current situation is the most important. Otherwise, I could consider the Iraqis to be superior over Germans, because of the Babylonian empire. Or I could say Egypts are superior because of the Pharaonic age. Both would be ridiculous.
And in a sense the same applies to a comparison between Southern European and Northern European ethnicities. We, our parents and our grandparents - all generations we are directly connected with - live in a world of "Germanic superiority".

Fair enough, I just wanted to emphasize that it wasn't something biologically inferential, but more a matter of social affairs.



Also, Germanic countries are known as safer and less corrupt places compared to many Southern European countries, which indicates superiority and stability in cultural aspects which are really important (opposed to cultures that are mainly based on being proud of what happened thousands of years ago).

I meant in relation to foreign elements. The Southern European countries seem to have a far lesser influx of out-of-European influence than many of the Northern and Central European countries, particularly France and Britain.


I think both inherent qualities and the surrounding play a role for the success of an ethnicity, but this would be an extremely complicated discussion.

It would indeed, we've seen only a few centuries ago that Southern Europeans were quite successful, with the great Mediterranean Empires and the Age of Exploration. So I think the biological component isn't there, at least not at a significant enough measure.



I don´t think this passage is correct. While there always were other minorities (which sometimes formed a majority in certain regions) the absolutely dominant factor in the US was an Anglo-Germanic culture. This is know changing for the first time in the US history. And I fear that it will have bad effects for the US.

They helped build the United States, nevertheless. Particularly in the regions where they were the majority. Of course, you're right in relation to politics. Anglo-Americans, with a few exceptions, controlled most of the politics at the Federal and State levels. I wouldn't mind if they did again, to be honest. Though, one must consider that the U.S is quite segregated in terms of demographics throughout the states.

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

greeks, they influenced and even colonized Rome which then colonized the world and influenced spain and france strongly

[Libertas]

greeks, they influenced and even colonized Rome which then colonized the world and influenced spain and france strongly

Well then,how the mighty have fallen. :):):)

[AkisGreece]

Οι Έλληνες.

[Geminus]

Οι Έλληνες.

όχι :p

[AkisGreece]

όχι :p

Ναι.

[AkisGreece]

όχι :p

Friedrich Nietzsche …. Aus dem Buch mit dem Titel “Die Geburt der Tragödie” (1872) .. Über Griechen
“Proven in jeder Periode ihrer Entwicklung hat die westeuropäische Kultur versuchte, sich von den Griechen zu befreien. Diese Arbeit mit tiefer Enttäuschung geprägt, denn alles, was wir schaffen scheinbar originelle und bewundernswert, verlieren Farbe und Leben im Vergleich mit dem griechischen Modell syrriknonotane, kam eine billige Kopie ähneln, eine Karikatur.

So immer wieder in Wut ausbricht getränkt Hass gegen die Griechen, gegen diese kleinen und arrogante Nation, die die Nerven, es barbarisch nennen, es habe in seinem Hoheitsgebiet ansässigen hatte …
Keiner der wiederkehrenden Feinde hatten das Glück, den Giftbecher, die für immer sein könnte loswerden zu entdecken. Alle Gifte des Neides, der Hybris, Hass, wurden nicht ausreichend, um die große Schönheit stören.

So die Menschen weiterhin Scham und Angst der Griechen fühlen. Natürlich, gelegentlich scheint jemand auf intakte Wahrheit, Wahrheit, daß die Griechen die Wagenlenker eines bevorstehenden Kultur sind und fast immer als die Wagen und Pferde der kommenden Kulturen sehr gering ist Qualität im Vergleich zu der Wagenlenker lehrt erkennen, die schließlich Arbeit fährt mit seinem Wagen in den Abgrund, die über die Achilles ‘Leap “sind.

[Drawing-slim]

Albanians without a doubt.
For 1300 years living next to serb haynas and we survived.

[Apina]

The Anglos.

[Übermensch]

Germans i'd say ...

[ficuscarica]

Stefan, I would like to adress some of the statements you made on page 18.




GeistFaust and I discussed the issue of biological (inherent) "superiority" a while ago.

Let me explain a theory to you: It is an evolutionary fact that life is formed by its environment, which consists of climate, soil, vegetation, landscape, etc. Even the natural mindset is formed by these factors, which for instance can be observed in the natural behaviour of dog breeds, some of which have not been around for more than some decades, but have already developed a distinct temperament.

When we assume that these principles (to some degree) apply to humans as well, the consequence would be that different environments have formed a different natural mindset in ethnicities. Let´s now take a look at the various environment and the effect they could have on populations. In the tropic areas we find rather primitive ethnic groups. Due to the climatical circumstances they have an abundance of fruit throughout all the year. There was never any challenge or selection for intelligence, discipline or creativity.
The mediterranean environment is already a bit more challenging, as the climate usually is too dry to provide sufficient food throughout the year. However, near the rivers there is enough water and combined with a lot of sunshine the river areas offer plenty of food. Therefore the mediterranean is a bit more challenging than the tropic areas, but not that challeging if you live near rivers.
Further north, in Central Europe, the winters are harsh and you have to be disciplined, creative and intelligent in order to survive them. Therefore there has been a selection for these traits. On the other hand side creative and disciplined people find enough ressources and a climate good enough to develop a more advanced society in these areas. This makes an ideal combination of challenges but also of chances. Further north in the arctic areas people had an environment that was too hard to allow more than surviving.

I think the Central European conditions were ideal to form intelligent and disciplined peoples, and this is why they developed "higher" than other ethnicities. Similar conditions are found in Japan and the Japanese have become the most advanced Asiats.

I don´t know how much genetic influence it had. Maybe the described environment has simply created a mindset that was responsible for the great Germanic success, maybe it has created a genetic "superiority". Both is possible.


What do you think about this theory?


Sidenote: Even if it was true I don´t think Germanics are better or worth more. They just have developed certain qualities, but everyone is made in the image of God.

[Rastko]

Jews

[Comte Arnau]

What do you think about this theory?


Two superior German words come to my mind: grosse Scheisse.

[ficuscarica]

Two superior German words come to my mind: grosse Scheisse.

Well, throughout the whole world Germanics (which includes Anglos) are known for traits such as discipline, intelligence and creativity (and they also have formed the world´s leading countries) and the environment in which these ethnic groups develop offers a logical explanation for this.

There is an obvious and clear correlation between the environment (climate, soil, etc) and the degree of advance in different groups.

Also notice that Jews, which came to all different places, became most successful alongside Germanics and the Central European environment. The Ashkenazis evolved over centuries in the "Germanosphere".

[Gospodine]

English.

Ruled the world (the parts that count) for 300 years.

[Comte Arnau]

Well, throughout the whole world Germanics (which includes Anglos) are known for traits such as discipline, intelligence and creativity

:rolleyes:

Discipline for sure. But not everyone sees discipline as compatible with intelligence. Rather the opposite. The least one reasons, the more one obeys.

As for creativity, I thought Nordicists left that department at least for the Meds. Apparently now you want it all. :p


(and they also have formed the world´s leading countries)

Which are they? The ones with the biggest army? The G8? The ones with more GDP x capita? Leading in what?


and the environment in which these ethnic groups develop offers a logical explanation for this.

Shouldn't Eskimos and Chukchis be the leading guys, following that theory? Their lands are challenged as hell!


There is an obvious and clear correlation between the environment (climate, soil, etc) and the degree of advance in different groups.

Obvious and clear. Yeah. Millimetric accuracy. Would you mind to tell me then why it has continually changed with the centuries? :confused:


Also notice that Jews, which came to all different places, became most successful alongside Germanics and the Central European environment. The Ashkenazis evolved over centuries in the "Germanosphere".

Sephardim were far more evolved before their expulsion. :coffee:

[ficuscarica]

:rolleyes:

Discipline for sure. But not everyone sees discipline as compatible with intelligence. Rather the opposite. The least one reasons, the more one obeys.

As for creativity, I thought Nordicists left that department at least for the Meds. Apparently now you want it all. :p

Intelligence is shown in inventing many if not most of modern technologies, such as bookprinting, cars, bikes, motors, computers, airplanes and motorized airplanes, the internet, electric light, batteries, basically most of the modern technologies. Alongside the Asiatics from similar regions (as I said, Japanese mainly) Germany is still one of the main exporters of advanced machines. And the Anglo-Germanic US produces most computer technologies.



Which are they? The ones with the biggest army? The G8? The ones with more GDP x capita? Leading in what?
Most advanced armies, highest GDP x capita (apart from some Arabs who had the luck to sit on oil), etc. Just look at the EU and check who are the givers and who are the takers.




Shouldn't Eskimos and Chukchis be the leading guys, following that theory? Their lands are challenged as hell!
This shows that you did not really read my posting. The environment has to be challenging but also rewarding, otherwise you will only fight for survival. In Central Europe intelligence was necessary but also rewarding and peoples could become more advanced. The conditions farther north were just too harsh.



Obvious and clear. Yeah. Millimetric accuracy. Would you mind to tell me then why it has continually changed with the centuries? :confused:
Because it took a longer time of development to become an advanced society in a more challenging environment. But finally the intelligence and discipline, which Germanics had to have, paid of and they became the leading peoples. Babylonians, Romans, etc had better conditions to start with - just as Africans. But less challenge meant less development while the Germanics became more and more advanced. You can even see this principle when you compare North Italy (with its almost Central European climate around Milano or Turin) to South Italy.




Sephardim were far more evolved before their expulsion. :coffee:
See the statement above.

[AkisGreece]

Some points you make are correct but you totally loose it when it comes to stupid stereotypes like givers and takers and all of that.

I do not take nothing from Germany,i do not get paid by civil service and trust me there is an outstanding possibility that i might be way richer than you are.

If Germans were that smart,they wouldn't loose the world domination twice.


Also this fucking Western World mania keeps out of the game Asian dynasties.


And if it comes to cars and all these crap that capitalist slaves spend their money on,i highly doubt that German products are better than Japanese ones.

Germans played a very dark role and spread blood across Europe twice.

I admit that they are a great nation,they offered a lot of things to European culture,but making them the superior race is fucking ridiculous.


Let's not forget,that German Brussels,the beautiful Vienna,was saved in the last minute not by Germans, but by Hungarians and Poles.


You are in great need of some history lessons my friend.


Cheers.

[Comte Arnau]

Intelligence is shown in inventing many if not most of modern technologies, such as bookprinting, cars, bikes, motors, computers, airplanes and motorized airplanes, the internet, electric light, batteries, basically most of the modern technologies.

You said: most of the modern ones. It is but the result of the post Industrial Revolution added to political domination. It was different 500 years ago and it might be different again in 500 years, whether the climate and the soil have changed much or not.

Bookprinting, btw, is not a Germanic invention.


Alongside the Asiatics from similar regions (as I said, Japanese mainly) Germany is still one of the main exporters of advanced machines.

Asiatics from similar regions... like the Mongols? :rolleyes:

Ah, no, the Japanese, of course. How convenient. But even the Japanese were nothing but a rural society with strict social rules that led little to innovation less than a century ago.


Most advanced armies, highest GDP x capita (apart from some Arabs who had the luck to sit on oil), etc. Just look at the EU and check who are the givers and who are the takers.

This shows that you did not really read my posting. The environment has to be challenging but also rewarding, otherwise you will only fight for survival. In Central Europe intelligence was necessary but also rewarding and peoples could become more advanced. The conditions farther north were just too harsh.

The problem is that, man, northern Slavic countries are in the same latitudes and with similar soils to that of Germanics. Your theory works only for what fits better for you. ;)


Because it took a longer time of development to become an advanced society in a more challenging environment. But finally the intelligence and discipline, which Germanics had to have, paid of and they became the leading peoples. Babylonians, Romans, etc had better conditions to start with - just as Africans. But less challenge meant less development while the Germanics became more and more advanced.


Hey, if that theory makes you feel better or something, believe it as much as you like, man. I wouldn't like to deprive you from that superiority feeling. :thumb001:

[ficuscarica]

Akis, I have the feeling that you read my postings only superficially. I was talking about Germanics which is not the same as Germans, but also includes the Anglosphere. English comes from Anglosaxon, which was a Germanic tribe that migrated to the British Isles. British and German is both part of the Germanic ethnicity.

Germans lost their world control to the US, which are mainly Germanics (mainly Germans and Anglos), which only proves what I said: Germanics are the superior European ethnicity, as the fight for dominance over the last centuries was between Germanic groups. Japan is the only country that is about as advanced as the Germanic countries, but interestingly the Japanese people developed under similar conditions, which asked for intelligence and which rewarded intelligence.

Then you talk about history, and we come back to the problem. Mediterranean peoples have to point back to what happened many centuries or thousands of years ago when they try to compete with the Germanics. And this is totally in accordance to everything I said: Germanics had a more difficult and therefore late start. But in their difficulties they became more advanced.

[ficuscarica]

[QUOTE=Count Arnau;1044313]You said: most of the modern ones. It is but the result of the post Industrial Revolution added to political domination. It was different 500 years ago and it might be different again in 500 years, whether the climate and the soil have changed much or not.

Bookprinting, btw, is not a Germanic invention.
As I said, it was only about 200 years ago that the Germanics selection for intelligence started to pay of. Before that there were many famines in winter. But the pressure made them more advanced and become superior.
And of course book printing is a German invention (by Guttenberg), which is common knowledge. But it actually falls in the time when the Germanics had not yet fully mastered their challenging winters.


Asiatics from similar regions... like the Mongols? :rolleyes:

Ah, no, the Japanese, of course. How convenient. But even the Japanese were nothing but a rural society with strict social rules that led little to innovation less than a century ago.


The problem is that, man, northern Slavic countries are in the same latitudes and with similar soils to that of Germanics. Your theory works only for what fits better for you. ;)
No, the Northern Slavic conditions and the Mongol conditions are more continental and even more challenging. They therefore could never pass the hinderances of their environment to become more advanced.

The "blue banana", the industrial core of Europe, is in an area that has a better mixture of challenging and rewarding conditions. It is harsh enough to form intelligence, but rewarding enough to allow becoming advanced. It just took some time.

I am willing to dismiss my theory if anyone comes up with something better. :) But this has not yet happened.

And even if we are superior in terms of intelligence and discipline (if my theory is true...), this leads to our destruction, as people from everywhere come, want our good life and destroy our society - be it in the US or in Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, etc. The leading countries concerning liveability are almost exclusively Germanic (German, Anglo):
http://data5.blog.de/media/468/3583468_8008e6881f_m.jpeg
Our "superiority" - if there is such a thing - ironically is our end.

[Comte Arnau]

As I said, it was only about 200 years ago that the Germanics selection for intelligence started to pay of. Before that there were many famines in winter. But the pressure made them more advanced and become superior.

Lol. Well, keep that 'superiority' for a thousand years more and that'll begin to mean something. :p

And of course book printing is a German invention (by Guttenberg), which is common knowledge.

Sure. That's why the oldest remaining printed document is a Buddhist Korean book, printed 20 years before Guttenberg was born. :rolleyes:

Book printing was a Chinese invention, just like many others. It must have been the Northerner-Chinky connection.


No, the Northern Slavic conditions and the Mongol conditions are more continental and even more challenging. They therefore could never pass the hinderances of their environment to become more advanced.

Can you tell me in what are the conditions for Poland so different from those for Germany? :confused:


The "blue banana", the industrial core of Europe, is in an area that has a better mixture of challenging and rewarding conditions. It is harsh enough to form intelligence, but rewarding enough to allow becoming advanced. It just took some time.

The blue banana mixes Germanics with Latins. ;)


I am willing to dismiss my theory if anyone comes up with something better. :) But this has not yet happened.

Nobody wants to ruin your illusion. You seem so happy with it! :D


And even if we are superior in terms of intelligence and discipline (if my theory is true...), this leads to our destruction, as people from everywhere come, want out good life and destroy our society - be it in the US or in Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, etc. Our "superiority" - if there is such a thing - ironically is our end.

Oh, so you're preparing the excuse for the lack of durability already. That's smart!! :thumb001:

[Damião de Góis]

Thanks for that link on quality of life. I told you ;)



I don't feel like leaving Lisbon to go to Scotland or Denmark or whatever. Life is good here :coffee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Living_Survey

[Partizan]

Russians and Germans.

Russia ruled half of Europe and Stalin was the most successful European leader ever.He assimilated and crushed all non-Russians,he industrialised Russia and he conquered half of Europe.I hate him for what he did to Crimean Tatars and Ahiska Turks but if I was a patriotic Russian,I'd adore him for what he did.

Germans,their industry is successful and strong.Brits or French can't compete with them about industry...

It's because of their discipline.I've stood in Düsseldorf for one month,it was damn boring.Except weekends,everywhere except in Altstadt closed after evening.Because people know they should wake up early and energetic for working tomorrow.A people with this discipline must be successful of course :)

[Comte Arnau]

Thanks for that link on quality of life. I told you ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Living_Survey

Lyon, Milan, Barcelona, Lisbon and Madrid in the top 50? Oh mein Gott, I expected all German cities to rank above them, not only 7. Not to mention there's only 1 single Brit. :D

[Graham]

Milan, Barcelona, Lisbon and Madrid in the top 50? Oh mein Gott, I expected all German cities to rank above them, not only 7. Not to mention there's only 1 single Brit. :D

Edinburgh wasn't included in the Survey.

[Comte Arnau]

Edinburgh wasn't included in the Survey.

I don't know whether Ficus will consider Ireland and Scotland full Germanics... :D

[ficuscarica]

Lyon, Milan, Barcelona, Lisbon and Madrid in the top 50? Oh mein Gott, I expected all German cities to rank above them, not only 7. Not to mention there's only 1 single Brit. :D

The survey shows that Germanic cities, including those in the New World are clearly leading. :)

[ficuscarica]

Lol. Well, keep that 'superiority' for a thousand years more and that'll begin to mean something. :p


Sure. That's why the oldest remaining printed document is a Buddhist Korean book, printed 20 years before Guttenberg was born. :rolleyes:

Book printing was a Chinese invention, just like many others. It must have been the Northerner-Chinky connection.


Maybe the Chinese invented something similar in the same time, but Guttenberg´s work in Germany was relevant for the Western civilization, which has been superior for centuries. But as I said, my focus is more on the last 200 years.



Can you tell me in what are the conditions for Poland so different from those for Germany? :confused:


Poland has considerably colder winters. Even here in Baden the regions in the colder Black Forest are much less developed than those in the Rhine valley. Most of Germany and Britain are rewarding when you have intelligent agriculture, but Poland is already harsher, similar to our mountain regions (which are backwards compared to the lowlands). As I said, Central Europe seems to be the place where the mixture of challenge and chances is best for an advanced society. Japan has a similar climate and similarly developed people.


The blue banana mixes Germanics with Latins. ;)


Only a bit and in the regions where the Latins live in Central European climate.





Oh, so you're preparing the excuse for the lack of durability already. That's smart!! :thumb001:
It is not an excuse, but obvious, when you look at the numbers which prove the negative effect of non-Germanic immigration to Northern Europe, Central Europe and the New World, especially in the areas of unemployment and criminality. The exponential population growth in the world and globalization make it much, much harder for the Germanics to maintain their superiority.
However, they are not outcompeted (which has not yet happened, but probably will sooner or later) by others becoming better, but by others becoming more numerous or infiltrating the Germanic countries.

[ficuscarica]

I don't know whether Ficus will consider Ireland and Scotland full Germanics... :D

Ireland definitely not. I guess Scotland is mostly Germanic, but I am not sure.

[Breedingvariety]

1. German
2. Dutch
3. English
4. French
5. Italian

[Comte Arnau]

The survey shows that Germanic cities, including those in the New World are clearly leading. :)

So, does it mean that only 7 German cities are superior, and all the rest are inferior? :p


Maybe the Chinese invented something similar in the same time, but Guttenberg´s work in Germany was relevant for the Western civilization,

Four centuries before is not "in the same time".

Obviously Guttenberg's was most relevant for the West. He didn't live in the East. What we don't know is if Guttenberg's "invention" was independent or if he got some knowledge from the Far East in some way.


Poland has considerably colder winters. Even here in Baden the regions in the colder Black Forest are much less developed than those in the Rhine valley. Most of Germany and Britain are rewarding when you have intelligent agriculture, but Poland is already harsher, similar to our mountain regions (which are backwards compared to the lowlands). As I said, Central Europe seems to be the place where the mixture of challenge and chances is best for an advanced society. Japan has a similar climate and similarly developed people.

Frankly, it seems as if you try desperately to adjust the theory in the most convenient way. Are you implying that the terrain and climate is almost uniform in the whole of Germany, but then it changes dramatically in a neighbour country that is part of the same European plain? Not to mention that Japan has an insular situation affecting its climate, and that, as I said, Japan has only been a developed country in the last decades.


Only a bit and in the regions where the Latins live in Central European climate.

The blue banana has only to do with a biggest concentration of industrial cities in a specific area and time rather than with any real correlation with the climate. Liverpool, Zurich and Genoa have totally different climates: Atlantic temperate, Alpine mountain and Mediterranean.


Ireland definitely not. I guess Scotland is mostly Germanic, but I am not sure.

I guess it will depend on the amount of superior figures they've got, won't it? ;)

[Libertas]

1. German
2. Dutch
3. English
4. French
5. Italian

Dutch? :confused::confused::confused:

[Übermensch]

80% of the most important people in human history were french,british,germans or italians (these are pheraps the most important ethnicities in Europe followed by Russians,Dutch,Iberians,polish,greeks,norwegian and danes).

[Graham]

I don't know whether Ficus will consider Ireland and Scotland full Germanics... :D

Edinburgh is Anglo-Scots & has a fare few English living there now. Including Peter Higgs who gave name to the 'Higgs boson' He's been here for 50 years as a professor at the University of Edinburgh University of Edinburgh.

[ficuscarica]

Count Arnau, the core of the blue banana has about the same climate everywhere, most of it lying in the lowlands. Zurich is farther south, which makes the climate similar to the more northern lowlands. You can check the climate diagrammes. In order to develop an advanced industry you need qualified workforce and innovative people. Apparently they came out of those regions with a similar climate (a bit more challenging because of its winters, but also rewarding for intelligence). They all have between 9 and 11 degrees as annual average and cold but not extremely cold winters. By the way, in the south the blue banana reaches only to Milano, which has almost the same climate as the southern Rhine valley and is definitely not mediterranean.

Poland has a considerably more harsh climate than the lowlands of West Germany, the Netherlands or England. Of course communism played a role, too.

Japan has been dominating Asia already in the time of WW II. It has a temperate Island climate, just like England.

[ficuscarica]

blue banana:

http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Europa/Plots/london.gif
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Deutschland/Plots/heidelberg.gif
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Europa/Plots/mailand.gif
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Deutschland/Plots/koeln.gif
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Europa/Schweiz/Plots/geneve.gif



compared to Poland:

http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Europa/Plots/warschau.gif
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Europa/Plots/bialystok.gif



Look at the winters! Even high in the mountains of West Germany the winters are milder:

http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Deutschland/Plots/klippeneck.gif

[Geminus]

You would really have a hard time to prove that Germanics are not the most successful ethnicity today.
If you look for example the human development index as a composite statistic of human development, you can see among the first 10 places only Germanic countries, and with Ireland a heavily Germanic influenced country. The first Romance country is France at place 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

[Balmung]

Brits or French can't compete with them about industry...

Thing is, its because of Brits that the industry even exist. Brits started the industrial revolution. And many of Britains inventions completely changed how industries work now. Don't be silly, its impossible to deny British influence in most things you do today. Russians were certainly not more successful than the Brits, Germans weren't either, but they're high up there.

[Damião de Góis]

Ficus, the blue banana reaches Genoa. And about Japan having the same climate as England, which english city has a climate similar to Sapporo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapporo

Japan is much colder, being on an eastern seaboard. Just like in America the east coast is much colder than the west coast.

[ficuscarica]

Ficus, the blue banana reaches Genoa. And about Japan having the same climate as England, which english city has a climate similar to Sapporo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapporo

Japan is much colder, being on an eastern seaboard. Just like in America the east coast is much colder than the west coast.

Japan has a long south-north extension. But the central Island is rather temperate.

Wiki is contradicting itself a bit about Genoa, because first it says about the blue banana that
It stretches approximately from North West England in the north to Milan in the south., but later it mentions Genoa as part of it. What ever is the case, it is obvious that the vast majority of the blue banana cities is in the temperate climate with 9-11 degrees annual average and harsh but tolerable winters.

[Damião de Góis]

Japan has a long south-north extension. But the central Island is rather temperate.


Well, either way they have a totally diferent climate than the british Isles or anything else in Europe. They are roughly at the same latitude as Iberia but as i've said they are at an eastern seaboard:

http://worldpress.org/images/maps/world_600w.jpg

They have no gulf current like Europe does and get winds from nearby Siberia.

[ficuscarica]

Alex Delarge, you can check the climate diagrammes. Japan´s main island Honshu(where Tokyo and other big cities are located) has a temperate climate - similar to France or the Southern Rhine valley -, only with more rain.

Aomori (north Honshu)
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Asien/Plots/aomori.gif
=> Winters a bit colder than in Milano, Cologne or London

Tokyo (Central Honshu)
http://www.klimadiagramme.de/Asien/Plots/tokio.gif
=> Winters a bit warmer than in Milano, Cologne or London


You see => roughly the same temperatures as in the blue banana, all together a bit warmer, but also a bit more rain.

[Tel Errant]

It has a huge lot to do with climate, ressources and geographic situation.
The blue banana started when Romans set colonies that grew big on the border along the Rhine limes btw. The Rhine is the biggest fluvial axis in western Europe and is connected with the rich padanian plain through the rich alpine countries. And talking about the Alps, it's not surprise eitheir if the richest regions of France, Italy and Germany -without mentioning Switzerland itself- are alpine regions. The Alps connect the biggest economies of the continent.
Now going by human achivements since the industrial revolution, it's the Seine and Thames bassins, the two highest densely populated european areas (Paris and London the biggest European megapoles):http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/6-1.jpg

The best of the best are provençal Monegasques anyway, they're just n°1 in every single chart:

Monaco boasts the world's highest GDP nominal per capita at $172,676 and GDP PPP per capita at $186,175.[31][32] Monaco also has the world's highest life expectancy at almost 90 years,[33] and the lowest unemployment rate at 0%,[34] with over 48,000 workers who commute from France and Italy each day.[14][35] For the third year in a row, Monaco in 2011 had the world's most expensive real estate market, at $56,300 per square metre.[36][37] According to the CIA World Factbook, Monaco has the world's lowest poverty rate,[29] and the highest number of millionaires and billionaires per capita in the world.[38][39]

[Hess]

Its pointless to make threads like this on a Nationalist Forum because most people just pick their own Country/Ethnic Group :shrug:

[Damião de Góis]

You see => roughly the same temperatures as in the blue banana, all together a bit warmer, but also a bit more rain.

You can find patterns elsewhere but with temperature it doesn't work.

Tokyo:

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2hzq1b5.jpg

Liverpool:

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2h4fj93.jpg

In August Tokyo's lows are higher than Liverpool's highs.
In fact even inside the blue banana things are totally different. Liverpool has no summer while Milan has suffocating summer heat.

[ficuscarica]

You can find patterns elsewhere but with temperature it doesn't work.

Tokyo:

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2hzq1b5.jpg

Liverpool:

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2h4fj93.jpg

In August Tokyo's lows are higher than Liverpool's highs.
In fact even inside the blue banana things are totally different. Liverpool has no summer while Milan has suffocating summer heat.

Although there are of course some differences, the annual average temperature everywhere inside the blue banana is between 9 and 11 degrees and the winters are between 0 and 5 degrees average. This means you have a long period of cold where you have to be creative in order to survive it, but also enough summer warmth to become successful. These regions are almost exclusively Germanic and both the highest developed places in Europe and the former home of those who built the US, Australia, etc.

In Japan the most developed regions are a bit warmer, but just as challenging because of more rain, storms, etc. All together a similar combination of challenges and chances which lead to Japan being the leading Asiatic country.

Also, all of these regions had a late start, because they were more challenged. But as I said, unlike in the extremer regions, the challenges were not too big to deal with them by using some intelligence - intelligence that the Mediterranean, African, Arabic, etc. peoples never were forced to develop in order to survive.

[ficuscarica]

I mean it´s simple:

- in the tropic regions: climb a tree and eat a banana - no intelligence needed
- in the mediterranean regions: live near a river throw some seed and everything will be fine - not much intelligence needed
- in central europe: be intelligent and dilligent with what you get in summer and you will survive - quite a lot of intelligence needed
- in the far north, the deserts, etc: even if you are intelligent you don´t get much of a chance, only thing that counts is toughness

Look at the situation of all the regions I mentioned and you see how true it is.

[Osprey]

I mean it´s simple:

- in the tropic regions: climb a tree and eat a banana - no intelligence needed




http://www.nikohk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/tommy-lee-jones-cannes-2005-nicolas-guerin.jpg

[Damião de Góis]

Although there are of course some differences, the annual average temperature everywhere inside the blue banana is between 9 and 11 degrees and the winters are between 0 and 5 degrees average. This means you have a long period of cold where you have to be creative in order to survive it, but also enough summer warmth to become successful. These regions are almost exclusively Germanic and both the highest developed places in Europe and the former home of those who built the US, Australia, etc.

In Japan the most developed regions are a bit warmer, but just as challenging because of more rain, storms, etc. All together a similar combination of challenges and chances which lead to Japan being the leading Asiatic country.

Also, all of these regions had a late start, because they were more challenged. But as I said, unlike in the extremer regions, the challenges were not too big to deal with them by using some intelligence - intelligence that the Mediterranean, African, Arabic, etc. peoples never were forced to develop in order to survive.

So this should mean southern Ukraine should be highly successful. Odessa has everything you mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa

Cold winters, daily mean of 10ºC and enough summer warmth.

[ficuscarica]

http://www.nikohk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/tommy-lee-jones-cannes-2005-nicolas-guerin.jpg

It is true. The peoples there did not develop "high civilization" because they didn´t need much intelligence to survive, everything grew on the tree.

[ficuscarica]

So this should mean southern Ukraine should be highly successful. Odessa has everything you mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa

Cold winters, daily mean of 10ºC and enough summer warmth.

The conditions I mentioned support the development of intelligence and dilligence, but they don´t guarantee it. Also, communism has the power to destroy every people, as intelligent as it might be. Just look how East Germany became almost a third world country through communism.

[Tel Errant]

intelligence that the Mediterranean, African, Arabic, etc. peoples never were forced to develop in order to survive.
Oh lord...
You're successfull when the conditions are there, it's the territory that's successful, not the people. All european peoples score the same (with a more or less 2 points difference) on IQ tests, it cannot explain the huge economic and living standards disparities between some countries and regions.

[ficuscarica]

Oh lord...
You're successfull when the conditions are there, it's the territory that's successful, not the people. All european peoples score the same (with a more or less 2 points difference) it cannot explain the huge economic disparities between some countries and regions.

The conditions for Britain and Germany were quite bad, many starved. They were forced to become intelligent people. This is the reason why they are superior to peoples with much more ressources.

[Partizan]

Thing is, its because of Brits that the industry even exist. Brits started the industrial revolution. And many of Britains inventions completely changed how industries work now. Don't be silly, its impossible to deny British influence in most things you do today. Russians were certainly not more successful than the Brits, Germans weren't either, but they're high up there.

Well,Brits can't update their industry.I'm sure still many of them use German automobiles :)

Also all Machine Engineering students I know learn German.Even it proves Germans are more successful.

BTW modern philosophy is developed by Germans.Kant,Hegel,Heidegger,Nietzsche,Marx...

Russians successed greatest revolution of 20.th century and they conquered half of Europe until Prussia :) They also successed "Russifiying" people from Baltic Sea to Korean border.Assimilating people in such a great area is definitely success.

[Osprey]

The conditions for Britain and Germany were quite bad, many starved. They were forced to become intelligent people. This is the reason why they are superior to peoples with much more ressources.

like conditions in india, bangladesh, china and congo are very good :D

[Stefan]

\

What do you think about this theory?


While the premise and everything is factual, there are a few problems with applying such a theory to modern Europeans. The first problem has to do with the comparison with dog breeds. Dog breeds have other selective pressured delineated by humans. That is why we have such a variety in such a small period of time from their ancestral wolf. Humans have regulated their breeding patterns heavily. While this is true as well for humans, it is to a much lesser extent. There is social selection in humans, but it isn't a conscious effort, but more-so a sub-conscious one, and therefore subtle.

Secondly, there just hasn't been enough time to differentiate such ethnic groups into varying populations in terms of abilities. In fact, all Europeans should have these factors, as they were all exposed to harsh winters in varying periods of time, particularly during the Ice-Age refugees.

Thirdly, a cold environment does not automatically lead to superior peoples. There needs to be a large enough population to enable a variety of mutations. Small sporadic populations don't allow for any selection to take place, because the required variety of mutations are not present.

Lastly, and most importantly, there has been FAR too much gene-flow within Europe and from outside of Europe, during neolithic times, for example. This influence brought certain cultural and genetic factors to Europe. Because of this gene-flow, we can't designate a discrete population, biologically. At least unlike we can with races. So any differentiation would be up to social factors, such as the elevated IQ we find in Ashkenazi Jews. This group would have to practice heavy endogamy and gene-flow must be limited as a population.

Overall, I think while the facts fit, the theory alludes to logical inconsistencies that do not fit with the reality of what we know about population genetics and allelic frequencies.

[Geminus]

But interestingly other people also embrace this idea. For example Richard Lynn also supports it: "He claims that populations in the colder and more challenging environments of northern Europe have developed larger brains than those in the balmier climates of the south."

He also makes statements which are totally politically incorrect :D

"More controversially, Professor Lynn claims the IQ differences between France and Germany can be linked to the results of military confrontations, describing it as "a hitherto unrecognized law of history" that "the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381057/European-IQ-map-proves-Brits-brainy.html

But of course it would be unfair to neglect accomplishments of the Mediterranean people in the past, many of the fundamentals of our Western civilization come from them :thumb001:
It just seems that the "Northerners" and especially Germanic people have taken the lead in our current time.

[Übermensch]

But interestingly other people also embrace this idea. For example Richard Lynn also supports it: "He claims that populations in the colder and more challenging environments of northern Europe have developed larger brains than those in the balmier climates of the south."

He also makes statements which are totally politically incorrect :D

"More controversially, Professor Lynn claims the IQ differences between France and Germany can be linked to the results of military confrontations, describing it as "a hitherto unrecognized law of history" that "the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381057/European-IQ-map-proves-Brits-brainy.html

But of course it would be unfair to neglect accomplishments of the Mediterranean people in the past, many of the fundamentals of our Western civilization come from them :thumb001:
It just seems that the "Northerners" and especially Germanic people have taken the lead in our current time.

Averege IQ for a German and a dutch is 108,104 for a sweedish,102 for an Italian and 100 for a Brit,98 for a spaniard,94 for a french,92 for a greek,90 for a turk and 89 for a serbian if i rember correctly.

[Insuperable]

Thing is, its because of Brits that the industry even exist. Brits started the industrial revolution. And many of Britains inventions completely changed how industries work now. Don't be silly, its impossible to deny British influence in most things you do today. Russians were certainly not more successful than the Brits, Germans weren't either, but they're high up there.

Are you talking about science and inventiveness or in general like science, spread of culture, musicians...?

[Stefan]

The average brain size in northern and central Europe is 1,320 cubic centimetres, but in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc.


Couldn't this have to do with the North having larger people? The ratio of brain mass to body mass is generally accepted as predictive of intelligence, not exclusively the size of the brain. This has to do with energy requirements of the brain. A smaller person with a larger brain for his size will be able to allocate more energy to the brain, and therefore take advantage of this in the form of intelligence. In comparison, a large person with a smaller brain for his body size, but a brain larger than the smaller person, will have to use the energy and metabolic resources in those other organs of the body. I don't know why he doesn't consider this.

[Insuperable]

Couldn't this have to do with the North having larger people. The ratio of brain mass to body mass is generally accepted as predictive of intelligence, not exclusively the size of the brain. This has to do with energy requirements of the brain. A smaller person with a larger brain for his size will be able to allocate more energy to the brain, and therefore take advantage of this in the form of intelligence. In comparison, a large person with a smaller brain for his body size, but a brain larger than the smaller person, will have to use the energy and metabolic resources in those other organs of the body. I don't know why he doesn't consider this.

Seems it is just the opposite
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000102973

[ficuscarica]

Stefan, your whole counter-argument is based on the assumption that evolution in humans takes relatively long periods of time. I don´t think this is true at all. The experiences with plants and animals show that significant changes can happen in relatively short periods of time, given the will for selection/selective pressure is high enough. I am sure that even in the last approx. 2000 years, after most peoples had found "their places" and thus gene flow had become rather limited, there was still a lot of selection and change in genetics, which could have lead to the differences I described above. For instance, "Ice Age related" traits could have become lost in South Europeans in the last 2000 years.

[Insuperable]

Seems it is just the opposite
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000102973

and when talking about humans I have expressed view of neurologists before
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54834&page=3

There could be some correlation between size of the brain and IQ but that just may not be exact.

[only1]

Germans.

German kings ruled over all Western Europe and all the noble families of Italy, France and Spain were of German origin. Without the German nobles and warriors the native Italian and Iberian serfs and peasants would have been crushed by the Islamic armies.

Scandinavians on the other hand... Not so succesful. They were simple peasants for the most part, ruled by German nobility.

[Damião de Góis]

Germans.

German kings ruled over all Western Europe and all the noble families of Italy, France and Spain were of German origin. Without the German nobles and warriors the native Italian and Iberian serfs and peasants would have been crushed by the Islamic armies.

More like, without German nobles and warriors, Islamic armies would have never gone to Iberia. ;)

[Stefan]

Stefan, your whole counter-argument is based on the assumption that evolution in humans takes relatively long periods of time. I don´t think this is true at all. The experiences with plants and animals show that significant changes can happen in relatively short periods of time, given the will for selection/selective pressure is high enough. I am sure that even in the last approx. 2000 years, after most peoples had found "their places" and thus gene flow had become rather limited, there was still a lot of selection and change in genetics, which could have lead to the differences I described above. For instance, "Ice Age related" traits could have become lost in South Europeans in the last 2000 years.

Not the entire counter-argument; only a portion of it. Much of my argument relies on principles of population genetics. Northern Europeans aren't a discretely separate population from Southern Europeans, as delineated by gene-flow. Much of the differentiation is clinal rather than isolated. Which would explain why Southern Europeans, can't lose their selective qualities from the Ice-Age, although the frequencies can differ. Remember, it was neolithic farmers who brought a lot of the cultural aspects to Europe from the near-east. ;)


Seems it is just the opposite
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000102973

Thank you for providing this study. It seems quite interesting. One must wonder whether or not Neanderthals had superior abilities in relation to humans, in certain areas, for that matter - due to their larger brains. Still, I'm not sure if such an assessment is concrete from one study, although I suppose there may be a correlation. Possibly, I wonder if it has got to do with better nutrition in the modern era.

Here's a pretty nice analysis of the entire scope of literature about this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/



Edit: Might I add in regards to Fiscus, if those traits from the Ice Age were advantageous, they wouldn't be lost in the Southern Europeans due to natural selection.

[Ánleifr]

Germans.

German kings ruled over all Western Europe and all the noble families of Italy, France and Spain were of German origin. Without the German nobles and warriors the native Italian and Iberian serfs and peasants would have been crushed by the Islamic armies.

Scandinavians on the other hand... Not so succesful. They were simple peasants for the most part, ruled by German nobility.


Scandinavians were/are Germanic. William the Conqueror who started the British Empire was of Scandinavian/Germanic stock.

[only1]

So that's why I drew the line between Germans and "Germanics".

Germans are by far more successful than e.g Norwegians.

[Loki]

So that's why I drew the line between Germans and "Germanics".

Germans are by far more successful than e.g Norwegians.

You mean to say West Germanics vs North Germanics. Remember the divide is more recent than you'd imagine. Anglo-Saxons have roots in Sweden and Denmark, and all Germanic tribes migrated southward from their ethnogenic urheimat in southern Scandinavia.

But I would agree with you. As far as Germanic tribes are concerned, the Franks were by far the most successful and influential.

[Stefan]

So that's why I drew the line between Germans and "Germanics".

I think this differentiation should be made as well. Much of the reason why these groups are dominant now, is a combination of two things. The French and Germans are core legacies of the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore have retained much of the cultural qualities that had brought Europe out of the dark ages and into a centralized power. Furthermore, the decline of Southern European empires, and the emphasized qualities of the English, who became the dominant European power after such a decline enabled these groups more freedoms and control. Europeans (Western Europeans at least) are all inter-connected historically, and that is why much of their histories are intertwined.

[AkisGreece]

You Germanics will get a good lesson soon.
West as a whole already strarted to feel the transfer of wealth from Europe to Asia.

To be honest,i will be very happy to see most of you and your arrogant approach towards life getting smashed hard by the Greater China.

I only regret for the few and decent that are my friends or relatives that live on the US/Northern Europe.


Superiority of Germanics and BS talk that keeps flowing among your circles and people who are ashamed for not being like you are.


I am not one of those and i'll never be.

[only1]

Yes, you're right. U.S, for example, is a crippling nation already, but they still live in an illusion that they are a "superpower" and "world's strongest nation".

Only a matter of a few years.