# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Germanic tribes - founders of modern nations

## Chris

There are various threads on the forum, but does anyone have a list of modern nations that can be said to have been founded by the Germanic tribes? 

I reckon England - via the Anglo Saxons - obviously Germany, the Netherlands. I'm sure there are others.

Thanks, Chris

----------


## Maciamo

It seems obvious that Germanic countries were founded by Germanic people. You forgot Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Belgium could also be considered Germanic. The country was founded as the unification of the Southern Netherlands, which had been part of Germany (Habsburgian or not) since Germany existed as a political entity after the dissolution of Charlemagne's empire. Prior to that Belgium was the centre of the Frankish (Merovingian) kingdom.

----------


## Chris

Thanks for the quick reply, Maciamo. Just goes to show how inter-related European history is!

----------


## Arahari

> There are various threads on the forum, but does anyone have a list of modern nations that can be said to have been founded by the Germanic tribes? 
> 
> I reckon England - via the Anglo Saxons - obviously Germany, the Netherlands. I'm sure there are others.
> 
> Thanks, Chris


In addition to the Germanic lands of England, the Netherlands, Flanders, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Germany etc also Russia was founded by the Swedish tribe known as the Rus and the Germanic Franks gave their name to Frankreich or France and the Burgundians and Norse also helped to shape other parts of the country. The Visigoths helped to create the Spanish state and of course without the Lombards and Ostrogoths there would be no Italy as we know it today.
We also must not forget that orginally the USA was a predominately Germanic country. The Teuton has a Wanderlust and this along with his other qualities marks him out to be a Culture Bringer.

----------


## Maciamo

France as a country was obviously founded by the Franks, although most of the French are not of Germanic descent. The medieval kingdoms of Italy, Spain and Portugal also have Germanic origins, as Arahari mentioned. Russia and Ukraine have their roots of the Swedish Viking kingdom of Kiev.

----------


## Wilhelm

The Spain that we know today, was founded by the Visigoths.

----------


## Maciamo

> The Spain that we know today, was founded by the Visigoths.


From what point of view ? Politically, culturally, genetically ?

Politically, Spain evolved from the 4 medieval kingdoms of Leon (founded by the Suebi), Castille (founded by the Visigoths), Navarre (Basque stronghold) and Aragon (heir of the Frankish March in Catalonia).

----------


## Wilhelm

> From what point of view ? Politically, culturally, genetically ?
> 
> Politically, Spain evolved from the 4 medieval kingdoms of Leon (founded by the Suebi), Castille (founded by the Visigoths), Navarre (Basque stronghold) and Aragon (heir of the Frankish March in Catalonia).


Actually , the Kingdom of Leon was founded by the Romans, not by the Suebi.
The Suebi founded the Kingdom of Gallaecia, wich was well before the creation of the Kingdom of Leon 

What I meant, is that, politically, the Visigoths unified Spain, wich was the seed for the later foundation of Spain.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The Suevi kingdom extended from Galicia (Galiza) down to central Portugal, It's southern border was somewhat south of the city of Coimbra. Parts of Leon and Asturias were also within the kingdom's boundaries. The Suevi capital was Braga (today, in Minho province, Portugal), part of ancient Galicia (Gallaecia).

----------


## Maciamo

> Actually , the Kingdom of Leon was founded by the Romans, not by the Suebi.


No, actually it is the *city* of Leon that was founded by the Romans. The Kingdom of Leon was founded in 910 when the capital of the Kingdom of Asturias (718–925) moved to Leon. The Kingdom of Asturias was itself the heir of the Suebic Kingdom of Galicia (410-584). The period in between was the Muslim conquest.




> What I meant, is that, politically, the Visigoths unified Spain, wich was the seed for the later foundation of Spain.


Ok, I see what you mean.

----------


## chris eblana

very interesting all the above....this is a nice forum i must say....

what about the germanic tribes that have migrated to places but have been either been absorbed by other native or migrant populations, or were kicked out of the region...?? haven't the vandals conquered what is today tunisia...?? haven't the goths invaded all eastern europe, all the way down to greece (we have readings in greece of their invasions, and how they were defeated -the cetls also invaded ancient greece before settling in asia minor....)...haven't germanic tribes colonized the baltic states later on, creating states like prussia, and the teutonic knights creating kingdoms in the baltic region? we could go on and on....and if we add the indirect links to gothic kingdoms, like many greek islands were under the rule of the knights of st john for example and other orders before falling into states like venice or later france and italy or the ottoman empire, only to be united in the greek state very recently....

----------


## DavidCoutts

> There are various threads on the forum, but does anyone have a list of modern nations that can be said to have been founded by the Germanic tribes? 
> 
> I reckon England - via the Anglo Saxons - obviously Germany, the Netherlands. I'm sure there are others.
> 
> Thanks, Chris


I can only tell you that they certainly *did'nt* play in significant part in the foundation of Scotland. While the English and the Germans are gentically speaking almost identical, as I understand it, there is a much larger distance between Scots and Germans.

----------


## Jujubee

> Actually , the Kingdom of Leon was founded by the Romans, not by the Suebi.
> The Suebi founded the Kingdom of Gallaecia, wich was well before the creation of the Kingdom of Leon 
> 
> What I meant, is that, politically, the Visigoths unified Spain, wich was the seed for the later foundation of Spain.



What about 711 ad-1492 ad? I think the arabs had much more influence in Spain than the Visigoths. Plus, I don't understand what you mean by "Visigoths unified spain". Roman provinces of Hispania, Baectia, etc, were all under Roman rule for centuries. 

I just think its weird how a lot of racist Spaniards have no problem saying how they have Visigothic culture and blood running through their veins even though the Visogothic Military-elite ruling caste most definitely were less in number than the arabs/syrians etc that rule large areas in Spain for much longer time than the Visigoths. I'd sooner believe that pigs fly than the politically motivated genetic tests done in spain that show that there is barely any arab/middle-eastern/berbere markers in the DNA. I call bullshit. If you read the primary sources in history, intermarriage between the two cultures and ruling classes in Medieval spain was common, it wasn't US vrs THEM, until later on.

----------


## sparkey

> What about 711 ad-1492 ad? I think the arabs had much more influence in Spain than the Visigoths. Plus, I don't understand what you mean by "Visigoths unified spain". Roman provinces of Hispania, Baectia, etc, were all under Roman rule for centuries. 
> 
> I just think its weird how a lot of racist Spaniards have no problem saying how they have Visigothic culture and blood running through their veins even though the Visogothic Military-elite ruling caste most definitely were less in number than the arabs/syrians etc that rule large areas in Spain for much longer time than the Visigoths. I'd sooner believe that pigs fly than the politically motivated genetic tests done in spain that show that there is barely any arab/middle-eastern/berbere markers in the DNA. I call bullshit. If you read the primary sources in history, intermarriage between the two cultures and ruling classes in Medieval spain was common, it wasn't US vrs THEM, until later on.


The Iberians will have a fun time with this one. I'm surprised nobody has jumped on it yet, maybe because the title of the thread is "Germanic tribes" and not something like "How Spaniards are basically Arabs."

Anyway, it's possible to look at Y-DNA haplogroups to get started. The primary Visigothic markers are probably going to be R1a and I1, with R1a more likely to be native to Spain pre-Visigoths than I1, which is younger and more strictly Germanic. Although, they also probably had R1b and I2a2, so something like an I1+R1a calculation can approximate their influence. The primary Berber marker is going to be E1b-M81, although it's a tricky one to deal with, as it also has an apparently strong pre-Classical European population included in it. A 50% E1b-M81 calculation would be generous, but we could start with it.

Anyway, in Spain, we've got ~1.5% I1 + ~2% R1a = ~3.5% Visigothic influence.
And we've got ~4% E1b-M81 = ~2% Berber influence per my unsubstantiated assumption above.

That's just me taking a stab, but I think that's around the figures we'll be arriving at... both fairly small but traceable single-digit input, with Visigothic maybe being a little greater for whatever reason.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Oh brother, more ignorance and hate coming out of the new member peanut gallery. Some statements are so pathetically false they are not even worth responding to in a serious manner. :Useless:  

Have a nice day.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Anyway, it's possible to look at Y-DNA haplogroups to get started. The primary Visigothic markers are probably going to be R1a and I1,


And why not R1b ? Do you know that Sweden has 22% of R1b ?




> with R1a more likely to be native to Spain pre-Visigoths than I1, which is younger and more strictly Germanic.


I1 is not germanic. Is paleolithic european.




> Anyway, in Spain, we've got ~1.5% I1 + ~2% R1a = ~3.5% Visigothic influence.


That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. What makes you think Visigoths didn't have R1b on the first place ? Plus that's not a way to measure visigothic influence, you are confusing haplogroup population frequency with individual admixture (autosomal)
Do you know that at Eurogenes the Iberians have 22% of North-European admixture ? I know it has not all to do with Goths, but just that people know.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Anyway, it's possible to look at Y-DNA haplogroups to get started. The primary Visigothic markers are probably going to be R1a and I1,


And why not R1b ? Do you know that Sweden has 22% of R1b ?




> with R1a more likely to be native to Spain pre-Visigoths than I1, which is younger and more strictly Germanic.


I1 is not germanic. Is paleolithic european.




> Anyway, in Spain, we've got ~1.5% I1 + ~2% R1a = ~3.5% Visigothic influence.


That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. What makes you think Visigoths didn't have R1b on the first place ? Plus that's not a way to measure visigothic influence, you are confusing haplogroup population frequency with individual admixture (autosomal)
Do you know that at Eurogenes the Iberians have 22% of North-European admixture ? I know it has not all to do with Goths, but just that people know.

----------


## sparkey

> And why not R1b ? Do you know that Sweden has 22% of R1b ?


Right, read my post more carefully. "Although, they also probably had R1b and I2a2, so something like an I1+R1a calculation can approximate their influence." Point is, it's more difficult to determine the R1b influence of Visigoths than the I1+R1a influence.




> I1 is not germanic. Is paleolithic european.


It's more accurately a Paleolithic European line that bottlenecked to a single individual circa 4500 years ago and later expanded almost exclusively within Germanic populations. I said "more strictly Germanic" anyway, not "Germanic."




> That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. What makes you think Visigoths didn't have R1b on the first place ? Plus that's not a way to measure visigothic influence, you are confusing haplogroup population frequency with individual admixture (autosomal)
> Do you know that at Eurogenes the Iberians have 22% of North-European admixture ? I know it has not all to do with Goths, but just that people know.


I was doing this for comparison's sake of Visigothic vs. Berber influence on a single line, and came away with Visigoths > Berbers (but both small). Autosomal studies are going to be much more difficult to do this comparison on because North-European components are not going to be easily separated as Visigothic vs. non-Visigothic. Feel free to come up with your own estimates if you think mine are "pathetic."  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Wilhelm

Well, the subclade I1b2 is also considered Germanic, and parts of Spain, like Castille has 19% or Cadiz(Andalusia) 10.7%, and Cantabria has 8% of R1a. But besides this, for germanic influence (since Visigoths were not the only the Germanics here, there were also Vandals, Suevi, Franks, etc) I would make : 

Q + I1 + I2b + R1a + R1b-U106 = 0.28 + 3.35 + 2.24 + 2 + 7.7 = 15.25

----------


## Knovas

Autosomal results look more accurate, haplogroups just tell an ancient small part. 22% must be primarly Visogothic, their presence in Iberia is perfectly documented after the Roman Empire. However, there are several Iberians who have inherited little of this, preserving a very high North Atlantic (Celtic). Of course, the last individuals can be considered more native to their territory, knowing that Celtic background is much more older than others in Iberia.

In the last Eurogenes run, West + Northwest shows more or less the same when a North Atlantic cluster in included. The allele frequencies must be very similar.

----------


## sparkey

> Well, the subclade I1b2 is also considered Germanic, and parts of Spain, like Castille has 19% or Cadiz(Andalusia) 10.7%, and Cantabria has 8% of R1a. But besides this, for germanic influence (since Visigoths were not the only the Germanics here, there were also Vandals, Suevi, Franks, etc) I would make : 
> 
> Q + I1 + I2b + R1a + R1b-U106 = 0.28 + 3.35 + 2.24 + 2 + 7.7 = 15.25


I was using Maciamo's estimates and your I1 estimate is higher. I actually think that you're justified in making it higher... the 0% he gives for Andalusia, for example, is obviously wrong.

I think small amounts of the Q and the R1a and maybe some of the others were introduced before the Migration Period... it's hard to estimate how much. The ratio also doesn't fit what we expect from the Visigothic admixture either, it looks more West Germanic. Any ideas of the relative contribution of the groups? Because if we suppose that a little bit of the admixture you gave (say 1%) is pre-Germanic to Iberia and each that you listed contributed about a quarter of the Germanic input, we end up with (15.25-1)/4 = 3.6% Visigothic influence.

----------


## Wilhelm2

At Eurogenes the North-Atlantic + North-European + Baltic + Finnic = 58.7 % (Portugal = 57.7% basically the same). 
In the most recent run, the West-European + Northwest-European + East-European + North-European + Baltic = 67.6 %
The rest is South-European. Basically a 60/40 mix of Nortwest and South.

----------


## Reinaert

Hmm..
All is pure speculation. Who says the Germanic or even the Celtic tribes all have identical Ydna?
People migrated all over Europe, and could easily form clans from different family lines.
Look what even happens in areas like New Guinea until this day. Clans are formed out of 2 or 3 families.
Living together, and have different functions. One family are hunter/gatherers/warriors and another family are primitive farmers.

Looking at Western Europe the Franks were the warrior tribe, that took control of the power, but it's easy to understand that the Celts in the area formed a large part of the army. In a few generations nobody would know the difference between them.

There are at least similarities between the legends around Arthur and Charlemagne.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> Russia was founded by the Swedish tribe known as the Rus


Better to say "was involved" in process of formation. Russia originally was created by Slavs, Finno-Ugric peoples and Varangians. First capital Novgorod was founded by Slavic & Finno-Ugric tribes, later they asked varangian konung Rurik to reign.

map - 1015 year


Ruins of viking fortress near Novgorod, google "Рюриково городище"

----------


## weissmacht

Modern Nations founded by Germanic peoples-England,Great Britain if you include southern scotland and some of the protestants of Northern Ireland,Kingdom of the Netherlands-which included the Dutch as well as the Flemish of Belgium,Modern Netherlands-Holland,United States,Australia,SouthAfrica,Rhodesia,Canada-along with the French,the Scandinavian nations,Austria,Alsace in France,Normandy in France,Lombardy Italy,Andalusia Spain,Danzig or Gdansk Poland,Switzerland,and some states started by the Rus-Vikings in Eastern Europe.Probably much more too.

----------


## weissmacht

I am not saying you are wrong about this-I dont presume to know hardly anything about the history of Spain but if Gallicia in Spain was founded by a Germanic tribe then why is it called Gallicia?That name refers to Gauls and the Celtic peoples who lived in Spain.

----------


## weissmacht

if the Germanic tribes had little to do with the founding of Scotland then why is Scots a Germanic-Angle language??????Why are the LOWLANDS more closely related to the Anglo-Saxons and Nromans than the Celts?And Why do SOOOO many Highland Clans claim and actually have ALOT of VIKING ancestry????The Hebridean Celts of Scotland were known as Galloglasses to the Irish-that refers to thier mixed Norse-Celtic culture as oppoesd to a predominantly Celtic one.You really dont know much about the history of Scotland-almost every Scot from the Western Isles to the Orkneys to the Lowlands have Germanic ancestry mixed with Celtic.

----------


## weissmacht

> There are various threads on the forum, but does anyone have a list of modern nations that can be said to have been founded by the Germanic tribes? 
> 
> I reckon England - via the Anglo Saxons - obviously Germany, the Netherlands. I'm sure there are others.
> 
> Thanks, Chris





> I can only tell you that they certainly *did'nt* play in significant part in the foundation of Scotland. While the English and the Germans are gentically speaking almost identical, as I understand it, there is a much larger distance between Scots and Germans.


The Irish called the Hebridean Scots-Galloglases meaning Foriegn Gaels referring to thier mixed Norse-Celtic culture and ancestry too.Many Many Highland clans claim Viking ancestry and as dna tests show many many Highlanders have ALOT of Viking ancestry from the Western Isles to Mid-Highlands to the Orkneys.The Lowlands speak Scots-which is a Germanic dialect taken from te Angles who settled heavily in the Lowlands.The culture of the Lowlands is historically closeley related to the Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultrures mixed with Celtic.The acutall ancestry of the Lowlands is predominantly Germanic in some parts and in other parts a mixture of Celtic and Germanic.The Highlanders are in some places a mixture of Norse-Celtic in some places Norman-Celtic and in some predominantly Celtic.The greates Kings of ALL of Scotland were Anglo-Normans-Robert the Bruce was of Norman descent and the Stewarts were originally from Brittany and came with the Norman invasion and were mixed with Norman blood.The population of Scotland has historically been settled the Heaviest in the Lowlands not the highlands.MOST Scots are Lowlanders or are of mixed Lowland and Highland background.And again throught history most Scots spoke the Scots toungueand not Gaelic-Scots being a Germanic tounge.Vikings,Normans,Angles and Celts-these are the major sources for the Genetic input of the people of Scotland.

----------


## Sile

the main tribes are Vindili ( vandals ) in the north
Suevi in the west
lugii in the east
Alemanni in the south

the others are branches of these , as an example, under the vindili where
Longobardi
Burgundones
Aviones
Varini
carini
Nuitones
Rugii
Lemoii
Turchilingi
Angili
Gotones

----------


## Vallicanus

Italy was only a geographical expression after the Lombard/Langobard invasion of 568 which left Byzantine areas like Rome, Naples and Ravenna. Arabs later occupied Sicily.
The Carolingian and Ottonian Kingdoms of Italy only included the northern half of the country as did the Holy Roman Empire in Italy.

----------


## zanipolo

> Italy was only a geographical expression after the Lombard/Langobard invasion of 568 which left Byzantine areas like Rome, Naples and Ravenna. Arabs later occupied Sicily.
> The Carolingian and Ottonian Kingdoms of Italy only included the northern half of the country as did the Holy Roman Empire in Italy.


The Italians where always rated a "geographical expression" even said by all european leaders as last as the congress of Vienna in 1820.

Which brings a question...when is someone known as an italian, after 1860 when Italy formed , or before?
Was leonard da Vinci a tuscan or an italian? If he was italian, then
Why are the Romans not known as Italians?

Was frederick the great a prussian or a pole now since there is no prussia. Historical expressions of cultures are so confusing the it leads to arguements

Was philip the good a burgundian or French?

----------

