World Families Forums - Vikings, Celts, and Saxons

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2014, 12:00:35 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Vikings, Celts, and Saxons
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Vikings, Celts, and Saxons  (Read 1516 times)
gunslingingardener
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« on: September 11, 2009, 04:23:12 PM »

I have been wondering if someone with R1b DNA could have descended from both Celts, Saxons, and Vikings.

The Celts were the most feared warriors from about 1200 BC to 500 AD, and the Celts spread anywhere from Spain to Scandinavia, so I believe there could have been R1b Celtic warriors who invaded Denmark, Germany, and Norway becoming Saxons and Vikings, who came much later than the Celts.

Most think that Vikings were the best warriors, but it seems the Celts and the Saxons won all the battles, including the war. Vikings mostly pillaged unarmed villagers, but the Celts as well as the Saxons were barbarians. R1a and I1 living in France and England could have been descendants of either Vikings or Saxons, while R1b could have descended from all three.

The Saxons came around 300 BC and were out of power about 1100 AD, while the Vikings were the last of the ancient warriors, from the 700s to 1100, so they had R1a, R1b, and I1 DNA.

Oisin seemed Celtic, but he probably had a number of descendants who were Vikings.

Is this possible?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 04:44:14 PM »

I'm not sure it matters who were the best warriors.  Each had their own successes in their own times.   It's like asking who is better? Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?

Actually for the sake of speculation, my opinion is the Italic folks, I mean specifically the Romans, were the best army in their day.  No question.  Not necessarily the best individual warriors, but they changed the world, absolutely.

As for who were Vikings, Celts, etc.   I think we may find that some early Celtic families became integrated with Germanic folks as well as vice versa to some degree.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 05:26:43 PM »

Hmm, since I am a self-proclaimed warrior (HA) I would have to say that it honestly depends on what situation.

The Celts were furiously independent people and warriors on the same side would engage each other in combat. Greek and Roman historians would marvel at the fighting spirit of Celtic warriors, watching them remove spears from their own bodies and use those spears against their enemies.

 The Germans were more hierarchical in their fighting system. I'm not saying they were strategically superior, but the ranking system they employed would serve as a plus against less unified, tribal forces. The Germans were able to beat the Romans by unifying politically.

I would say that a Celt would most likely win against a German in individual combat. Although on occasion (Britons, for example) Celts would unify for a single purpose and defeat their Germanic counterparts, the Germans would most likely out maneuver Celts on a large battlefield, army vs. army.

The Romans just had a gift of discipline, at least in the beginning, They got that from the Greeks.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



gunslingingardener
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2009, 12:14:03 AM »

The Celts were used as mercenaries for the Spartans. The Spartans described the Celts as great horsemen. If the Spartans thought someone was a great warrior, it really meant it.

The Romans were definitely the most advanced army of its day, but again your right about a Celt vs. Roman, the Celts were better warriors, just not military strategists.

A number of Celts, probably over 40% invaded Scandinavia, becoming Vikings and attacking their distant cousins, other Celts, and everyone else.

Does anyone have additional information on Oisin?

Does anyone know anything about "Ruisko"?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2009, 09:18:45 AM »

... The Spartans described the Celts as great horsemen.
...
A number of Celts, probably over 40% invaded Scandinavia, becoming Vikings
...
I'm not saying these things aren't true, but would like to read more.  What are your sources?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2009, 10:43:47 AM »

I don't think the Celts themselves reached Scandinavia, but their culture definitely did.

The La Tene II and III periods had the most effect on Germanic culture, particularly in weapons such as the Celtic throwing axe. Celtic swords were also known for their quality, and the Roman word gladius is actually of Celtic origin.

There were also Germanic tribes that had Celtic kings, and in the case of the Cimbri and Teutones of Denmark, their leaders had Celtic names. What does that tell ya?
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



gunslingingardener
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2009, 03:53:36 PM »

Here are my sources of the Celts being mercenaries for the Spartans. The Spartans must have really thought the Celts were great warriors if they hired them as fighters, I didn't think the Spartan ego would let them hire fighters.

Here is the website:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/European-History-670/spartans-celts.htm


They have more websites, just google it.

I forget where I read that Celts reached Scandinavia, but if R1b is the Celtic gene, and it existed in Scandinavia to about 30 % to 40%, then that means that Celts reached southern Norway and Denmark probably in the 400s or 500s and later became Vikings.

Oppenhiemer had stated that invaders (I assume Celts) from the British Isles used routes to invade Scandinavia, and that the Vikings used the same route later on.

R1a is mainly found in India, but is found in Scandiavia and parts of Western Europe and Eastern Europe, most likely from Vikings who carried the DNA. R1b, from what I know was carried by Celts, and could have been carried by Saxons and Vikings. That's how wide spread R1b DNA is and it was probably in higher percentage in Scandinavia since it is already present there today.

I1 was carried by Saxons, and Danish Vikings. I've read that the Saxons didn't leave as much behind as most think. Most websites will tell you that Viking DNA is only R1a and I1, but R1a, R1b, and I1 DNA are even in Scandivania where Vikings came from, which means there were numerous Norse Vikings with R1b DNA.

The Celts, Saxons, and Vikings lived at different times, but did coexist with each other.




Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2009, 07:23:02 AM »

If the Celts, Vikings and Saxons were M269 then of course they are all related.The I people were the first people in to Ireland so say the experts.Who really knows?
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 18 queries.