The father of the Modern Europe was an Arab.

He is from Korsika, and Korsiks are christianised Arabs, they speak still arabic. Guess who I mean.

Weel you are right. It is a Mix, like in Malta and both sounds very arabic.

But like South-Italians they look like Arabs, and they were under Arab occupation from 8 to 10 century.

Poles and Russians are geneticaly the same, they are Slavists like myself.

Pardon me for saying this, but that is just plain stupid.

who?

who is the father of modern Europe?

Of course, after all his grandmother could be a cheater

He freed Arabs from the Ottoman Empire to bring them under the Britain Occupation, and to establish a state by European colonists, on their land.

Unfortunately yes. He was much more effective than British army.

At least Peter O'Toole got recognition...

Lawrence is NOT father of modern Arabia, Arabian land is from Muritania in the west to Oman in the east and from Syria in the north to Somalia in the South

Lawrence was in Jorden area Only which does not represent all Arabia

it is very wrong to consider Lawrence as father of Arabia, History does not say that

all the countries in north africa are Arabic and part of the Arabian land

North Africa is populated by Arabs except a tiny minority. Andulus civilization in Spain was culturally Islam and ethnically Arab. (Most developed civilization of Europe in its time.)  

Lawrence was very influential against Ottomans and he was also backed with huge financial sources. They took most of the the support from desert Arab bedouins at the beginning, the most backwarded part of Arab society and unfortunately they have been selected as new rulers of new born Arab countries after I WW.  This fact is still influential in todays' political and religious life of Arab countries. 

In fact at the beginning of the war British army has been defeated in Iraq front and pushed back until the shores of Iranian Golf. The British army under the command of general Townshend has been captured in Kut by a 14.000 British war prisoners in April 1915. In April Lawrence was authorized to offer the Turks £1,000,000 to quit the siege of Kut, though he doubled it, Turkish commander Khalil Pasha rejected it scornfully. But in 1917 it became impossible for Turks to defend the lands because of lack of supply due to sabotages and revolts. In the 9th December of 1917 we have lost Jarusalem to British troops in Sinai front. (Background was the Acabe attack of Lawrence).       

North Africa has a large nonARab minority. Morocco is a majority Berber and Algeria (my country) is a bout 25% Berber. There are some areas (the Kabyle for example) where you may go and meet noone who speak Arabic natively for miles.  Also the Andulus civilzation was ruled by Arabs (and Berbers) but most of the people were native Iberians. Many of the settlers to al Andulus were not Arab at all but were Berbers (Tarq ben Ziyad was Berber himself) of various tribes.

i have a question:

what color of the human race are arabs considered as?

white or what?

They are considered "white" even their skin color varies from olive to white.  

Serves the arabs right for trusting us british, they would have been better off under the ottomans. They should have known that we never make a promise that we intend to keep. Obviously, unless money, oil or other resources are involved.

No such thing as a free lunch with us i am afraid! That is why the imperial imheritance went to the Americans.

But ultimately it was masterfull strategy by a generation of visionaries of a bygone past. 

What an utter nonsense Napoleon was french. He was born one year after Corsica was annexed by France. Being of italian origin increase his frenchness since the Romans were part of the four major lines (Gaul, Frank, burgundian and Roman) from which most french descended.

 Corsicans are all french, Napoleon wasn't italian (in fact he held them in contempt) and what is this abomination of Corsican being arabs?

The Arab conquest of the Middle East and North Africa established Arab rule over the whole area (for a time). But there simply weren't enough Arabs to significantly affect the gene pool everywhere.

Even the Berbers were relatively late comers to North Aftrica - being the descendants of the Vandals, no?

Calling everybody in the former Arab empire 'Arabs', even though they may speak Arabic and have Arab cultural institutions, makes little more sense than calling people in the former British Empire British because their official language is English, they have Parliaments and they play cricket.

a very accurate positioning!!! very accurate..

your words must be put at once into the elementery school textbooks in all the arabic world as well as in underdeveloped and developing countries, in order no to be mislead in the future again

and Napoleon Bonaparte was born 1769 A.D, Damn One year.

yea !!

whats your point?

or you having problems knowing what Arabian plate means and what Arabian land means?

Are you claiming the Germanic invaders left no significant traces in Gaul or northern Italy? There are no Franks in France and no Lombards in Lombardy?

I won't argue with that (it's why I put 'no?' at the end of my statement). I'm happy to accept 'Berber' as meaning the original inhabitants of the area.

It doesn't affect the main thrust of my statement that there weren't enough Arabs to significantly affect the gene pool - in fact it rather reinforces it.

For the Berber/Arab balance look at http://i-cias.com/e.o/berbers.htm - http://i-cias.com/e.o/berbers.htm  

Do you see anything wrong with http://www.historyofjihad.org/africa.html - http://www.historyofjihad.org/africa.html  ?

Actually you've shown in the past some interesting genetic maps of Europe - do you have any for North Africa?

No Bosno, i think he was a homosexual not a pedophile. He was in love since his young age with one of his arabic "companions"/friend.

Cheers.

I think a better way to find out if north africans are arabs or not, is to ask themselves. We could ask them how they feel as arab or non arab. Perhaps want north african forumers answer this question. 

And he is wrong if he meant the Germanic didn't have an impact on Gaul. The Frank who can be classified as Germanic although their ultimate origin was out of the Germania founded the nation of France (neustria northern France). Up to 15% of the old french vocabulary were from Frankish and Frankish literally altered the structure of the language so that the language spoken in northern France wasn't the same as that spoken in southern France. And prior to the barbarian invasion do you know what percentage of Frankish population had been recorded settling in Gaul, nearly 20% and that prior. It is possible the Frank was a majority in some region of France of northern France even before the invasion. And no nation has contributed more to the creation of France as the Frank, in fact, France was named after the Franks. So a true french is actually a Frank mixed with the initial population, then, the name Franc (Frank) was extended to every part of the conquered territory. Franc became Francais (Frankish = french) Check the intensity of Frankish tombs with weapon  in northern France prior to Frankish invasion. I sometime don't believe the Frank quite invaded, they seemed to have been there already. It was probably a rebellion rather than an invasion, the people took the power from the romans and moved down to chase the other barbarians. To back that theory, all agricultural tools in northern France in the 4th century were of Frankish origin meaning the Frank peasants were already an integral of northern France. In the south the tools had latin names.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v286/TemplarX2/?">

THere are also the burgundi they were celtic but they were Germanic.

As for the Lombard their impact on Italy were minimal (at most they left their name to a region), in fact the Frank may have had a bigger impact than the Lombard. The Franks defeated the Lombard and northern Italy were temporarily Frankish. The Franks usually had a tradition of chasing barbarians and even forcing christianity onto them (Saxons come to mind), except in the case of the burgundi they fell on a bone and the Burgundi were there to stay in France, and infact to become a fierce enemy of France until they were subdued by the Sun king and assimilated.

Aren't the germanic people nations which speaking a germanic language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_peoples - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_peoples  in this list i can see many tribes who are in fact Germans.

Well if a tribe stay for centuries in Germania it is very likely they will catch many germanic words and the language gradually transform, but a Frank has little in common racially with say a Goth and the Frankish language differs greatly from the language of the Goths. Germania was rather a dynamic places where many tribes transited for centuries. By definition anyone that had transited in that area long enough to  be culturally changed can be considered as Germanic but they were far from being an homogenous group. The Franks originated east of the Danudes while the Goth came from scandinaia. THe burgundians were without any doubt a celtic tribes so were the bavarii who descended from the Boii.

 The word Germanic is therefore not to be confused with the word German.

This site is a propaganda site trying to pass everything for Germanic. For instance it is well known the English are in fact mostly decendent of the britons later they came under the control of an anglo-saxon minority which was nearly destroyed  the french-norman-Angevin who killed most of anglo-saxons ruling elite or displaced them.

The Germanic were simply a mosaic tribes residing in Germania long enough.

My father is from Morocco, near Tangiers. He is very light skined with black eyes and hair (it is white now...). He, of course sees himself as an arab, but he is aware that many Atlas berbers married into his family, which makes him x% (?) berber. This can explain the lightness of his complexion.

His family doesn't speak Tamazigh nor some other berber dialect. His granfather had four wives (one which was a slave from southern morocco/mauretania/senegal (?) before he impregnated her and converted her to islam). Hence having Unlces and cousins who are mixed black-arabic-berbers...

This makes my father's family a very mixed genetic pool.

We speak arabic (north african dialect which is not understandable by Middle Eastern people - we understand them but they don't really understand us) and refer to our family as Arabic so of course we se ourselfs as Arabs.

I personally don't beleive in the distinction between Arabs/Berbers/Sahraouis in North Africa ... since the 750's, the whole of NA is a mixing pot/melting pot for all the local populations plus some elements added by the Andaluz Caliphate and the European colonization.

I have much respect for berbers and kabils, their history is great with civilizations/kingdoms like Numidia and Mauretania (Roman and pre-roman). I hate the fact that they are oppressed and silenced by the Moroccan and Algerian GVTs.    

Cheers.

Simply entitled "The Franks" by Edward James. It discusses mostly about the impact of the Franks in northern France how they affected the language, the society etc creating the nucleus of future France. Before that there was absolutely no concept of french whatsoever. Without the Franks, France would have been a mosaic of kingdoms today.

It also put emphasis that the Franks quickly became Franco-Roman (of course Roman here Gallo-roman)

Germanics weren't Germans for the simple reason most of them didn't originate in Germania and a german culture didn't exist in those days. As I've emphasis German. Language alone doesn't make a people.

I would pass on for I can't find the information I require that but know I strongly disagree. In racial term burgundian were celtic. The germanophone only brought the language. Race matters more than language. An indian speaking English doesn't make him an Englishman.

Just like Germanophile pass everything for germans which is absoloute nonsense.

Latin influence wasn't that great in northern France after the barbariab invasion only in southern France was it of importance. THe Franks  had a more important effect on northern France than the latin overhall. The laws, architecture, agricultural practice, language influence, style of war of Northern France were all Frankish while the south was roman. The difference was so sharp that the people of the south only call those of the north as french until the 14th century.

In fact French only appeared after the Franks, old french was basically romance and Frankish. The structure of french differs considerably from all other latin languages for that reason. Just like English differs a lot from Germanic language due to considerable french influence.

90% of surnames in Northern France are in fact of Frankish origin. And the Franks were in Northern even before the

Anyway here is an extract of Edward James The Franks, to demonstrate how deeply embedded the Franks was in northern Gaul society even before the Barbarian invasion.

The Merovingian were infact "Gallish-germanishe Mischcivilization"

http://photobucket.com/albums/v286/TemplarX2/?">

Language alone is what actually constitutes a nation or ethnicity (at least in most cases).

Germany is the state/country of some Germans, the same that Vasconia is the state/country of Basques.

There's no "racial" terms: Burgundians spoke a Germanic tongue and therefore were Germans. You may mean that they belonged to the part of Germans that had a strongest Celtic background...

... but while this is likely for Franks or Alamani/Suabi, it is very unlikely for a tribe that used to live in Poland.

I'm not germanophile. I just realize that 90% of the people of Europe nowadays speak either Romance, Germanic or Slavic. And the linguistic division in Western Europe was about the same (with the notable exception of the British islands, the recession of Basque and the Germanic assimlation of the nord-Alpine lands) in the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

I also refuse to seek Gauls everywhere... I am fine if that was the case (to Caesar what is of Caesar...) but obviously Celts were never in Poland nor Bornholm, the ancestral home of the Burgundian tribe before 300.

The names of the early Burgundian kings are strikingly Scandinavian: Gundahar (Guther) and Brünhild, could be Swedes but hardly Welsh.

While I agree that French is without doubt thje most germanized Romance dialect, it is Latin after all. If Latin "wasn't that great in Northern France", your surely would be speaking German (Frankish) now.

I agree with this observation but you must concede that without an important presence of Latin, there's no reason for French to have evolved.

It may be but I'm pretty sure that the Romance surnames must dominate over those of Germanic (Frankish) origin.

Maybe... in any case France (Northern France) is the region of the Western Empire that (after Britain, naturally) suffers a strongest Germanic influx. South of the Loire that influence exists but it is just a thin layer.

Did you scan this or something how do you do it??

Anyway back to  topic:

 I am the father & the holy creator of Europe.