Rank the big 4 European subraces from most to least White

[Dorian]

Mediterraneans
Celtic
Slavic
Germanic

+1

[TheOldNorth]

The first three aren't races.

well if you only include the purest examples (i.e. highland scots, danes, and belorussians then yes they are reflections of basal groups that separated about 3-5 thousand years ago)

[floooos]

1. Celtic
2. Germanic
3. Slavic
4. Mediterranean

[Decius]

They are all white lol.

[Cristiano viejo]

Celtic.
Med.
Germanic.
Slavic.

"White" as a concept was born in Britain

False. It was created by Spaniards when conquered America. You are welcome.

[Red Pill]

They look whatever they look, not Western, it's only your agenda that says that. As someone already said, the look of ancient Romans is very peculiar and don't belong to these modern classifications (even if we can approach it by saying that a lot of romans were kind of "alpine-med", "dinaro-med" and atlanto-med).



And you had emperors like Marcus Aurelius with very mediterannean traits, also Augustus was a mix between med/alpine/some noric, not sure that he will pass in Northern Europe LOL. Basically you cherry-picked those who were said "nordid", Julius Caesar would not pass Germany or maybe southern Germany but that's all.





This is an obviously bullshit, this is what nordicists love to point out in order to says : "hey Romans were corrupted by thousands of slaves".

https://books.google.fr/books?id=X_e...page&q&f=false

If this finding is correct, then the slave population of Italy even at its greatest extent must have been far smaller than Brunt imagined, perhaps no more than a million. Otherwise, one must suppose that a very large number of slaves existed but made no contribution to the peninsula's genetic composition because they simply failed to reproduce themselves. Yet a very large number of slaves, on the order of 3 million, presupposes that this population was fairly successful at reproducing itself because it could never have reached that size in the first place and then maintained those numbers for centuries through imports alone. As already noted, the majority of new slaves brought into a servile population that was not reproducing itself completely would only have replaced old slaves who had died.



I have answered that. No proof whatever.



Romans were not swarty, they were of mediterranean phenotype as I've already said.

As they say: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"... I have no agenda, and I never said that the ancient Roman elite looked like Scandinavians. I didn't cherry-pick any image, you did, right above. And even that image doesn't look like somebody from a MENA country. Marcus Aurelius heavy beard and hairstyle doesn't let see his features very well. He doesn't look however like somebody from the Sopranos to me. I couldn't find sources about the genetic studies mentioned by Rosenstein, so I cannot comment on that, but his book is from 2004 and a lot of new genetic studies with more advances techniques have been done by then.

Not only many ancient Roman statues looked like regular Western Europeans (who are by no means 'pure Nordics'), but even those of several descendants of the Greco/Macedonian Diadochi. They could pass in France, perhaps in Britain or even in Germany. The effect of slave influx and immigration on the Roman bloodline is testified by contemporary sources, and by archeological evidence as well. According to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome many households in Rome in the II century AD had Syrian names. And Scipio Aemilianus, talking to the rioting plebs, addressed them as "You to whom Rome is step-mother", referring to the fact that many of them were descendants of freedmen - or freedmen themselves. Manumission was a common practice in ancient Rome, and the children of freedmen were born free, and had rights of citizenship. I recommend you to do some more research, and tune down the arrogant tone a bit .

[Arch Hades]

As they say: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"... I have no agenda, and I never said that the ancient Roman elite looked like Scandinavians. I didn't cherry-pick any image, you did, right above. And even that image doesn't look like somebody from a MENA country. Marcus Aurelius heavy beard and hairstyle doesn't let see his features very well. He doesn't look however like somebody from the Sopranos to me. I couldn't find sources about the genetic studies mentioned by Rosenstein, so I cannot comment on that, but his book is from 2004 and a lot of new genetic studies with more advances techniques have been done by then.

Not only many ancient Roman statues looked like regular Western Europeans (who are by no means 'pure Nordics'), but even those of several descendants of the Greco/Macedonian Diadochi. They could pass in France, perhaps in Britain or even in Germany. The effect of slave influx and immigration on the Roman bloodline is testified by contemporary sources, and by archeological evidence as well. According to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome many households in Rome in the II century AD had Syrian names. And Scipio Aemilianus, talking to the rioting plebs, addressed them as "You to whom Rome is step-mother", referring to the fact that many of them were descendants of freedmen - or freedmen themselves. Manumission was a common practice in ancient Rome, and the children of freedmen were born free, and had rights of citizenship. I recommend you to do some more research, and tune down the arrogant tone a bit .

Both the Southern and Northern Italian genetic structure will preceded the Roman Empire. It'll go back largely to the Bronze and Iron ages. In the South you'll likely see Greek and Phoenician influence precedes Rome's domination of the peninsula. Your subjective assessment of statues is pretty irrelevant. And it's also not like many Italians, especially Central and Northern Italians phenotypically would look that odd in Western Europe (France, Spain, and Britain I presume). There's phenotypical overlap.

With that said Southern italians and Sicilians have probably seen some geneflow from the Levant, but Northern European like people likely never existed in Southern Italy or Sicily until the Normans and Vandals and Ostrogoths invaded.

[Samnium]

Both the Southern and Northern Italian genetic structure will preceded the Roman Empire. It'll go back largely to the Bronze and Iron ages. In the South you'll likely see Greek and Phoenician influence precedes Rome's domination of the peninsula. Your subjective assessment of statues is pretty irrelevant. And it's also not like many Italians, especially Central and Northern Italians phenotypically would look that odd in Western Europe (France, Spain, and Britain I presume). There's phenotypical overlap.

With that said Southern italians and Sicilians have probably seen some geneflow from the Levant, but Northern European like people likely never existed in Southern Italy or Sicily until the Normans and Vandals and Ostrogoths invaded.

Actually there are S.Italians that plot in Central Italy so your reasoning is definitely not true, in S.Italy there was in some areas a lot of Italic Tribes that were themselves partly central-euro (anyway with northern admixture), I think that inland Southern Italy (where these tribes settled and lived) is litteraly under studied. The gene flow from Levant is the same thing there are S.Italians that have very low RECENT mena (the rest is very ancient anatolian DNA, which is not what we can call geneflow from Levant), you can't extrapolate some results to a region so different genetically.

Look at Sicily there are sicilians like tuscans, abrruzese, s.italian average, halfway between S.Italian "average" and Italkim/Sephardim...

[Rugius]

1. Germanic
2. Celtic
3. Mediterranean
4. Slavic

What you have to keep in mind is historical changes in genetic makeup. Mediterranean Europeans were originally Nordic-like but later admixed with west Asians. With Slavs it was the opposite.

[Celestia]

1.They
2.Are
3.All
4.White