Ford's (Bosnian Serb) autosomal results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Slavs were probably more southern shifted though. East Euro peaks more north from Slavic urheimat that's the thing

---

yeah, everyone already had neolithic admixture before migrations, just how much is not sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Serbia wouldn't stand much chance if Austro-Hungarian command didn't arrogantly underestimated them. Not because Serb soldiers were inferior (actually they had edge due to defending their homeland and having previous battle experience from Balkan wars) but simply because Serbia couldn't match Austro-Hungary in man power and industrial output (weapons productions etc). Austro-Hungarian army was not modernized but it still had superior logistics and technology compared to Serbia. Also larger pool of men and reserves to draft for war.

Most Serbs do agree without allied help to transport their troops to Corfu they would have even bigger losses. Serbs lost most men during retreat trough Albania, thousands of captured Austro-Hungarian soldiers and officers that were retreating with them also left their bones there.

---

85% of austro-hungarian army was on primary russian front, only 15% of soldiers was in serbian front. Austria-Hungary had very powerful ground forces, the total size was 7,8 million soldier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Army

The A-H army was much bigger than british, american or italian army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

Probably. I2a-Dinaric north is carpathian i think

---

Romanians originated from Western balkans and hungarians from Volga. Modern Romania was home of bulgarians:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Bulgarians.png

Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldova was bulgarian slavic:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/bf...88aeef5e59.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

85% of austro-hungarian army was on primary russian front, only 15% of soldiers was in serbian front. Austria-Hungary had very powerful ground forces, the total size was 7,8 million soldier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Army

The A-H army was much bigger than british or italian army.

---

I know, equipment was outdated though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

A Serb (female) that is close to the K13 reference

Eurogenes K13 Oracle results:
K13 Oracle ref data revised 21 Nov 2013

Kit M650062

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 28.95
2 North_Atlantic 27.71
3 West_Med 17.05
4 East_Med 13.31
5 West_Asian 9.5
6 Red_Sea 1.17
7 South_Asian 0.85
8 East_Asian 0.49
9 Northeast_African 0.47
10 Amerindian 0.47
11 Sub-Saharan 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Serbian 3.24
2 Moldavian 6.14
3 Romanian 6.68
4 Hungarian 7.02
5 Croatian 7.67
6 Bulgarian 9.26
7 Austrian 9.84
8 East_German 11.25
9 Ukrainian_Lviv 14.37
10 South_Polish 14.66
11 West_German 15.47
12 Ukrainian 15.57
13 South_Dutch 16.94
14 French 17.3
15 Greek_Thessaly 17.57
16 Polish 18.31
17 North_Italian 18.37
18 Southwest_Russian 19.35
19 Ukrainian_Belgorod 19.54
20 North_German 19.71

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 73.3% Croatian + 26.7% Tuscan @ 1.75
2 55% Bulgarian + 45% East_German @ 1.8
3 51.6% North_Italian + 48.4% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 2.03
4 71.3% Croatian + 28.7% North_Italian @ 2.21
5 75.8% Serbian + 24.2% Croatian @ 2.24
6 76.2% Moldavian + 23.8% North_Italian @ 2.27
7 75.9% Croatian + 24.1% Italian_Abruzzo @ 2.29
8 63.7% Romanian + 36.3% East_German @ 2.31
9 57% Ukrainian + 43% Tuscan @ 2.38
10 77.1% Croatian + 22.9% West_Sicilian @ 2.42
11 83.7% Serbian + 16.3% East_German @ 2.44
12 57.6% Hungarian + 42.4% Bulgarian @ 2.45
13 87.9% Serbian + 12.1% Ukrainian @ 2.46
14 89.7% Serbian + 10.3% Polish @ 2.49
15 73% Serbian + 27% Moldavian @ 2.49
16 87.5% Serbian + 12.5% South_Polish @ 2.5
17 87.4% Serbian + 12.6% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 2.52
18 53.9% Romanian + 46.1% Croatian @ 2.52
19 59% Ukrainian_Lviv + 41% Tuscan @ 2.56
20 51.4% Romanian + 48.6% Hungarian @ 2.57

---

Look this one.

Serb from western Bosnia.

K15
Population Percent
1 Baltic 22.36
2 North_Sea 20.34
3 Atlantic 12.84
4 West_Med 12.75
5 Eastern_Euro 11.91
6 West_Asian 10.74
7 East_Med 7.28
8 Southeast_Asian 0.89
9 Red_Sea 0.75
10 Oceanian 0.12

#Population (source) Distance:
1 Moldavian 4.6
2 Croatian 6.82
3 Hungarian 7.58
4 Serbian 9.06
5 Romanian 9.58
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 10.03
7 Austrian 11
8 Ukrainian 11.21
9 South_Polish 11.31
10 Bulgarian 11.88
11 East_German 12.02
12 Polish 14.44
13 Ukrainian_Belgorod 14.87
14 Russian_Smolensk 15.12
15 Southwest_Russian 15.62
16 Belorussian 17.2
17 Estonian_Polish 17.42
18 Finnish 18.2
19 Southwest_Finnish 18.24
20 West_German 18.51

https://i.imgur.com/ikneEnE.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

Look this one.

Serb from western Bosnia.

---

since when are Serbs outside of Serbia representative of all Serbs ? :rolleyes: This one is closer to average Croats than average Serbs and we know why. Western Bosnia was Croatian land before Ottoman conquest.

if you dislike real Serbs, you can always declare as orthodox Croat bruv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

since when are Serbs outside of Serbia representative of all Serbs ? :rolleyes: This one is closer to average Croats than average Serbs and we know why.

---

I must agree with this. Don't know why Pribislav always shows some results out of average Serbian result. He should show my results since they are most average Serbian results here. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moje ime

I must agree with this. Don't know why Pribislav always shows some results out of average Serbian result. He should show my results since they are most average Serbian results here. :cool:

---

He don't like the fact most of Serbs are more southern shifted than his kin from Dalmatia and Bosnia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

since when are Serbs outside of Serbia representative of all Serbs ? :rolleyes: This one is closer to average Croats than average Serbs and we know why. Western Bosnia was Croatian land before Ottoman conquest.

if you dislike real Serbs, you can always declare as orthodox Croat bruv.

---

Bosnia was part of Hungarian Kingdom or hungarian vassal state in the medieval age, the locals were mostly croats.

http://www.slovak-republic.org/pictu...y-map-1300.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...of_Hungary.png

Pribislav made fun of me because I'm dark haired while he's blond. Dude is a nordicist lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Pribislav made fun of me because I'm dark haired while he's blond. Dude is a nordicist lmao

---

What's a wrong with nordicist? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

What's a wrong with nordicist? :D

---

Serbs are very far from nordic looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

since when are Serbs outside of Serbia representative of all Serbs ? :rolleyes: This one is closer to average Croats than average Serbs and we know why. Western Bosnia was Croatian land before Ottoman conquest.

if you dislike real Serbs, you can always declare as orthodox Croat bruv.

---

I did not said that this guy is Serbian average. I just show to Leto result which was not posted here earlier.

Moje ime has right, her results are approximately about Serbian average in comparation what is currently known as Serbian average.

Guy with Slovenian/German origin speak about medieval Croatian lands. :rotfl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Pribislav made fun of me because I'm dark haired while he's blond. Dude is a nordicist lmao

---

I am not obssesed with nazism and nordicism as you.

On other forum Jana "provoke" me that I look very Croatian, because I look more northern than how she imagine Serbs.
Interesting phenomenon is Croatian idiotic claim about Serbs as mix of Vlachs and Turks, and even Gypsies somethimes. That is pure ustashian anti-Serbian propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

I am not obssesed with nazism and nordicism as you.

On other forum Jana "provoke" me that I look very Croatian, because I look more northern than how she imagine Serbs.
Interesting phenomenon is Croatian idiotic claim about Serbs as mix of Vlachs and Turks, and even Gypsies somethimes. That is pure ustashian anti-Serbian propaganda.

---

You are troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pribislav

I am not obssesed with nazism and nordicism as you.

On other forum Jana "provoke" me that I look very Croatian, because I look more northern than how she imagine Serbs.
Interesting phenomenon is Croatian idiotic claim about Serbs as mix of Vlachs and Turks, and even Gypsies somethimes. That is pure ustashian anti-Serbian propaganda.

---

Send me your photo, I'll tell if you are dark by East Slavic standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Serbs are very far from nordic looking.

---

Once upon a time there was a really Nordic looking Serb on TA. No kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Once upon a time there was a really Nordic looking Serb on TA. No kidding.

---

Minesweeper? he looks like Dolph Lundgren

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Once upon a time there was a really Nordic looking Serb on TA. No kidding.

---

You can find uber nordics even in Turkey bro, it's average we are talking about. Anyway i like my dark hair light eyes combination, girls usually prefer it to blonds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Once upon a time there was a really Nordic looking Serb on TA. No kidding.

---

There are nordid looking peoples in every european nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

Minesweeper? he looks like Dolph Lundgren

---

Probably him. I don't remember. That member may no longer be active anyway. I'd like to see his DNA results if he is still around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

You can find uber nordics even in Turkey bro, it's average we are talking about.

---

I'm not arguing about it, just made a remark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Probably him. I don't remember. That member may no longer be active anyway. I'd like to see his DNA results if he is still around.

---

I thought it's specific Snps that gives a person certain features, pigmentation etc not actual ancestry though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

I thought it's specific Snps that gives a person certain features, pigmentation etc not actual ancestry though

---

Sure. But the frequency of those traits does differ across ethnic and geographic groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Sure. But the frequency of those traits does differ across ethnic and geographic groups.

---

True but even siblings can look different. it all depends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Send me your photo, I'll tell if you are dark by East Slavic standards.

---

OK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

True but even siblings can look different. it all depends

---

Two brothers, Tunisian father, Austrian mother
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/ce...f2c596c8be.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

True but even siblings can look different. it all depends

---

Such is the case with me and my brother. I'm pretty dark while he's super light, looks like an Austrian or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ford

Such is the case with me and my brother. I'm pretty dark while he's super light, looks like an Austrian or something.

---

Yeah my sis is skinny with big boobs like a typical Baltic and I’m Black

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

Yeah my sis is skinny with big boobs like a typical Baltic and I’m Black

---

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick

Yeah my sis is skinny with big boobs like a typical Baltic and I’m Black

---

You do look Jamaican, bruh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ford

Such is the case with me and my brother. I'm pretty dark while he's super light, looks like an Austrian or something.

---

Dark in terms of hair and eye color? I doubt you are dark-skinned in winter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Dark in terms of hair and eye color? I doubt you are dark-skinned in winter.

---

Yes, basically, although I don't tan that well so I have pretty much the same tone all year round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Romanians originated from Western balkans and hungarians from Volga. Modern Romania was home of bulgarians:

Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldova was bulgarian slavic:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/bf...88aeef5e59.jpg

---

Not this shit again. Romanians didn't migrate from anywhere.

Yes, First Bulgarian empire dominated the lands North of Danube, including the territory of today's Transylvania.
However, Bulgarians didn't live there, their presence was solely military. The population of Transylvania in 10th century comprised of Vlachs and West and South Slavs, some settled, some still migrating, but no Bulgarians. The only places where compact historic populations of Bulgarians lived in past or present Romanian lands are Northern Dobrogea and Bugeac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

Not this shit again. Romanians didn't migrate from anywhere.

Yes, First Bulgarian empire dominated the lands North of Danube, including the territory of today's Transylvania.
However, Bulgarians didn't live there, their presence was solely military. The population of Transylvania in 10th century comprised of Vlachs and West and South Slavs, some settled, some still migrating, but no Bulgarians. The only places where compact historic populations of Bulgarians lived in past or present Romanian lands are Northern Dobrogea and Bugeac.

---

You are wrong, because romanians have latin origin and the latin language is not native in this area. Romanians are descedants of the romanized west balkanite population (vlachs).

Procopius greek historian wrote:

"The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right."
Peri Ktismaton (Buildings), Book IV, 9-10.

There was no latin speaker population in the lands on other side of the Danube namely, in Dacia.

Jordanes wrote:

""I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only."
Getica, XII, 73-74.

The old chronicles didn't mentioned any survivor dacian or latin population in the modern Romania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

You are wrong, because romanians have latin origin and the latin language is not native in this area. Romanians are descedants of the romanized west balkanite population (vlachs).

[unrelated quotes]

The old chronicles didn't mentioned any survivor dacian or latin population in the modern Romania.

---

That's absolute nonsense. Roman cities in Dacia were inhabited and had a Roman life until 7th century, when they were (mysteriously) abandoned. These cities show traces of all major events that happened in the Roman empire, including the persecution of Christians and finally the adoption of Christianity as a state religion.

These cities were not affected by Huns and Gepids. They probably payed tribute, or who knows what happened. By 7th century all of these cities were abandoned, in a period that coincides with the establishment of the Avar Khaganate in this area.

Latin speakers were very much alive and well on the territory of Romania between 2nd and 7th century. Then there is a period of merging cultures, in which the Vlach element remains dominant, probably because Vlachs were numerically superior in the area, especially in the highlands:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...o_8th_cent.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

That's absolute nonsense. Roman cities in Dacia were inhabited and had a Roman life until 7th century, when they were (mysteriously) abandoned. These cities show traces of all major events that happened in the Roman empire, including the persecution of Christians and finally the adoption of Christianity as a state religion.

These cities were not affected by Huns and Gepids. They probably payed tribute, or who knows what happened. By 7th century all of these cities were abandoned, in a period that coincides with the establishment of the Avar Khaganate in this area.

Latin speakers were very much alive and well on the territory of Romania between 2nd and 7th century. Then there is a period of merging cultures, in which the Vlach element remains dominant, probably because Vlachs were numerically superior in the area, especially in the highlands:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...o_8th_cent.jpg

---

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:: rotfl::rotfl: You edited it in Paint? :D

There were no latin speakers in Dacia in this time, every old chronicler refute that.

Procopius greek historian wrote:
"The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right."

Jordanes:
"I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only."
Getica, XII, 73-74.

But sorry i know the romanian natinalists know better than Jordanes and Procopius :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:: rotfl::rotfl: You edited it in Paint? :D

There were no latin speakers in Dacia in this time, every old chronicler refute that.

Procopius greek historian wrote:
"The River Ister (Danube) flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right."

Jordanes:
"I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only."
Getica, XII, 73-74.

But sorry i know the romanian natinalists know better than Jordanes and Procopius :D

---

Neither historians explicitly state that there weren't Latin speakers living North of Danube, but that doesn't matter anyway because we have actual archaeological evidence of Latinophones' presence.

How come we have Christian churches in Romania, built between 4th to 6th centuries? - 35 churches unearthed so far.

Were Celts, Goths, Gepids or whatever, building churches at that time? do you think they were Christian in the 4th century? are you that stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

That's absolute nonsense.

---

"Roman cities in Dacia were inhabited and had a Roman life until 7th century"

Proof?

"These cities were not affected by Huns and Gepids. "

Proof?

"Latin speakers were very much alive and well on the territory of Romania between 2nd and 7th century. "

All old sources deny it.

"because Vlachs were numerically superior in the area"

There were no vlachs in this area. Just ostrogoths:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_Empire_1.png

Huns:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eutsch.svg.png

Visigoths:

https://www.shorthistory.org/images/...ns-378-439.jpg

Bulgars:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...in_Europe..jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixulescu

Neither actually traveled to see the cities North of Danube, so your point is moot because we have the actual archaeological evidence of Latinophones presence.
If the Romans would have left in 200s AD, then we wouldn't have Christian churches in Romania, built between 4th to 6th centuries, but we do - 35 churches unearthed so far.

Were Celts, Goths, Gepids or whatever building churches at that time? do you think they were Christian in the 4th century? are you that stupid?

---

Not just latins were christians lol but germanic tribes (goths, gepids) and partly huns too:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2303783...n_tab_contents