# Scythians - The Greatest Warriors of World



## waraich66

Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them. A list of nations :

In Europe

Celtic - lived in Scythia, as per ancient Irish annals; the Tuatha de Danann even brought back a contingent of Scythians with them

Germanic tribes - descended from Scythian tribes that wandered over into Europe from little Scythia, which was near the Black Sea; prior to that these Scythians had lived in what is today Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but after fighting the Scythian tribe of Massagetae (i.e. 'great getae'), they migrated west. They were chasing another mysterious people,the Cimmerians, from whom the Welsh(Cymru) claim, and certain Germanic tribes (Sugambri) trace, their descent.

Scandinavia - most of the pantheon worshipped by the Svearna (ancestors of the Swedes) were people called the Aesir. They came from the East and fought with the extant Vanir. Odin (Wotan) and Thor were from this family. Additionally the Gotarna of Southern Sweden were Goths and related to the Getae of Thrace, the Visigoth and Ostrogoths and the Massagetae of Asia.

Saxons - a tribe not mentioned by name in ancient history of tribes but evident that Sakson could be another spelling ie sons of Saka (the ancient and proper spelling of Scythian). Even Saxon historians described the men sent back to mainland Europe to get more men for the invasion and settlement of Briton as returning to Scythia

Sarmatians - the lands of the Poles and Russians was ancient Sarmatia; Sarmatians were the product of Scythian men and Amazon women, hence the cultural and language differences between Germanics and Slavs

In Asia

Parthians - originally united around the Pars tribe, Iran was also ruled by a Scythian dynasty in the form of the Parthians, who were a clan from the Dahae tribe. The Dahae are linked to the Goths, as per a strange paragraph in the the Annals and Deeds of the Goths. 

Jat & Rajput tribes - of northern India, especially the Punjab have been linked by British ethnographers to Scythian origins, although heavily mixed with the pre-Indo European Dravidian population; probably have Kushan, Chionite, & Massagetae blood.

Afghans - still settled in the area where the Sakas (i.e. Scythian) migrated; probably more likely to be descended from the Massagetae, Scythians and especially the Hephthalites (another Scythic nation), a brutal, warlike people that savaged both the Persians and the Turks till the two united and destroyed their kingdom.

In essence, the nation of Scyths (Sakas) spread from the western coast of Ireland to the bay of Bengal.

Misconception - central asia was exclusively turco-mongol in ancient times

Reality - the nascent Turks (Gok Turk back then) and the Mongols were living near the Tien Shan and Altai range. This is not to say that populations did not mix. The finding of red-haired mummies in the Gobi proves this, but it is clear that central Asia, especially between the Oxus and Jaxartes river and most of Afghanistan was Ancient Scythia, and that the Scythians were nomadic caucosoids.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

What a fascinating note! Be aware that you are opening a Pandora's box, with a controversy ripe for the bursting on every line, in every sentence. Still, it is an absolutely splendid subject.

What interests you most about the Scythians? The extent and breadth of their influence? Their European presence and traces? Their Asian and south Asian presence and traces?



Muhammad Yahya said:


> Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them. A list of nations :
> 
> In Europe
> 
> Celtic - lived in Scythia, as per ancient Irish annals; the Tuatha de Danann even brought back a contingent of Scythians with them
> 
> Germanic tribes - descended from Scythian tribes that wandered over into Europe from little Scythia, which was near the Black Sea; prior to that these Scythians had lived in what is today Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but after fighting the Scythian tribe of Massagetae (i.e. 'great getae'), they migrated west. They were chasing another mysterious people,the Cimmerians, from whom the Welsh(Cymru) claim, and certain Germanic tribes (Sugambri) trace, their descent.
> 
> Scandinavia - most of the pantheon worshipped by the Svearna (ancestors of the Swedes) were people called the Aesir. They came from the East and fought with the extant Vanir. Odin (Wotan) and Thor were from this family. Additionally the Gotarna of Southern Sweden were Goths and related to the Getae of Thrace, the Visigoth and Ostrogoths and the Massagetae of Asia.
> 
> Saxons - a tribe not mentioned by name in ancient history of tribes but evident that Sakson could be another spelling ie sons of Saka (the ancient and proper spelling of Scythian). Even Saxon historians described the men sent back to mainland Europe to get more men for the invasion and settlement of Briton as returning to Scythia
> 
> Sarmatians - the lands of the Poles and Russians was ancient Sarmatia; Sarmatians were the product of Scythian men and Amazon women, hence the cultural and language differences between Germanics and Slavs
> 
> In Asia
> 
> Parthians - originally united around the Pars tribe, Iran was also ruled by a Scythian dynasty in the form of the Parthians, who were a clan from the Dahae tribe. The Dahae are linked to the Goths, as per a strange paragraph in the the Annals and Deeds of the Goths.
> 
> Jat & Rajput tribes - of northern India, especially the Punjab have been linked by British ethnographers to Scythian origins, although heavily mixed with the pre-Indo European Dravidian population; probably have Kushan, Chionite, & Massagetae blood.
> 
> Afghans - still settled in the area where the Sakas (i.e. Scythian) migrated; probably more likely to be descended from the Massagetae, Scythians and especially the Hephthalites (another Scythic nation), a brutal, warlike people that savaged both the Persians and the Turks till the two united and destroyed their kingdom.
> 
> In essence, the nation of Scyths (Sakas) spread from the western coast of Ireland to the bay of Bengal.
> 
> Misconception - central asia was exclusively turco-mongol in ancient times
> 
> Reality - the nascent Turks (Gok Turk back then) and the Mongols were living near the Tien Shan and Altai range. This is not to say that populations did not mix. The finding of red-haired mummies in the Gobi proves this, but it is clear that central Asia, especially between the Oxus and Jaxartes river and most of Afghanistan was Ancient Scythia, and that the Scythians were nomadic caucosoids.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waraich66

Joe Shearer said:


> What a fascinating note! Be aware that you are opening a Pandora's box, with a controversy ripe for the bursting on every line, in every sentence. Still, it is an absolutely splendid subject.
> 
> What interests you most about the Scythians? The extent and breadth of their influence? Their European presence and traces? Their Asian and south Asian presence and traces?


 
I was searching about my tribe (waraich) history , which linked with Scythians , then came to know that Scythians sprung from (House of Isac).

Further major five germanic tribes Angles , Saxon,Danes,Jutes, Vandel are also Scythians.Angles and Saxon moved towards England( Angle land) and Jutes settled in Kent moved from Jutland(Danmark)


----------



## Joe Shearer

Muhammad Yahya said:


> I was searching about my tribe (waraich) history , which linked with Scythians , then came to know that Scythians sprung from (House of Isac).
> 
> Further major five germanic tribes Angles , Saxon,Danes,Jutes, Vandel also sprung from Scythians.Angles and Saxon moved towards England( Angle land) and also Jutes settled in Kent.


 
Even these two references could generate multi-volume tomes of history, sociology and linguistics. I would be fascinated in your choice of either track, the Germanic one or the Scythians in south Asia. I assume that you are already familiar with the suggested links between Jats and Sakas, and are hinting at that? If you explore the south Asian link, be aware that all the Jats in the world will be watching, and a significant proportion will want to comment! 

Would it be possible to bring us up to speed with a note on possible Waraich connections to the Scythians? That would certainly get responses flowing in.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Muhammad Yahya said:


> I was searching about my tribe (waraich) history , which linked with Scythians , then came to know that Scythians sprung from (House of Isac).
> 
> Further major five germanic tribes Angles , Saxon,Danes,Jutes, Vandel are also Scythians.Angles and Saxon moved towards England( Angle land) and Jutes settled in Kent moved from Jutland(Danmark)



I have heard that the Waraich tribe is related to the district of Bahraich in UP (Bahraich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## Rig Vedic

The name "Waraich" or "Bharaich" is believed to have been derived from the name of an area known as Bahraich, near Agra. Bahraich gradually changed to Bharhaich. A slight difference in pronunciation of sounds like 'Ba' with 'Wa' between East and West Punjab leads to Waraich. Further phonetic variations of the name is Varaich or Warraich.

*This family is part of the Suraj Bansi clan(Suryavanshi in Hindi/Sanskrit)(Sun Dynasty in English).* They are known to be part of the Aryan migration to India. *{However Aryan migration theory is now controversial.}* In India, Aryans had three separate clans they are the Suraj Bansi, Chandar Bansi (Moon Dynasty) and Agni Bansi (Fire Dynasty).


Sir Denzil Ibbeston speculated about the sprung from Jewish Descent of the Baraich tribe.[1][citation needed]

According to Sir Lepal Griffin, the Waraich established a city named Bharhaich in India. Later, the tribe moved towards Punjab in times of Ghazni and settled in Gujrat (in present day Pakistan).[2].

At present the original Baraich tribe is settled on the borders of Afghanistan and Balochistan (Pakistan).[citation needed]

*According to Epigraphica Indica, Volume I, page29, a rock inscription Chamak Harsati Balaghat mentions that the Bharhaich Jats performed 10 Ashwamedha Yagnyas and, constructed 10 ghats in Banaras (now Varanasi). In fact, these people are clans of great bhara kingdom who ruled the entire eastern UP and bundelkhand region of India. Shri Kashi Prasad Jaisawal, an eminent historian, has refer them as Bharshiva who put the Shivalinga on their shoulder and committed to free the India from forgien yoke like Kushan and other Shaka Khastrpa.* The offspring of these people are now known as "Rajbhar" and "Bhar" in eastern part and living in despicable conditions. According, to coins and copper plates found near village Janghat of Farrukhabad and various places in the Punjab, details of which are available in " India in the Cauvery" and "District Inscriptions in the Central Provinces of India".

Warraich have five sons which moved from eastern side of Punjab near Chenab in two cities Gujrat and Gujranwala. Three brothers moved Gujrat and other two moved to other side of Chenab in Gujranwala.

These Jats / Rajputs ruled over Shergarh, they also ruled over Nagaur and other cites till 275 AD. Inscriptions of their times are in Sanskrit.[citation needed]

In or about the 10th century A.D. they moved down to the river Jhelum in large numbers and settled down there. Till the 13th century AD they continued to fight with the Gujars. Even to day they occupy a very compact area comprising 360 villages in a region called Jatat.

In the days of Feroz Shah Tughlaq, a leader of these Jats named Heriya, joined Islam. A village founded by him is known as Hariyawala. After him all the Jats of this gotra joined Islam. Sagarh and Mard gotras are branches of this gotra

Waraichs in Punjab consider themselves to be the progeny of three brothers, Hariya, Gunia and Kurtal, who were rulers of the Bahraich principality. During Sher Shah Suri's conquest of Bengal, these rulers captured his treasure enroute to the province. It was believed that Shah may not succeed in his campaign. To their surprise, Sher Shah won Bengal and established his rule over a large part of Northern India and present day Pakistan.

By this action, The Waraichs, found themselves on the opposing side to the ruler. They left the estate and traveled westwards. They settled upon finding suitable grazing grounds on the banks of the Chenab river. This new home was on the lands previously used by Gujjars for grazing their cattle. This drew rivalry between the Waraich Jats and the Gujjars. Traces of clans presence is evident from the name "Gujrat", which is thought to be derived from "Gujar-Jat".

The Waraich clan gradually spread out to places beyond Gujrat such as Gujranwala and Sargodha (in today's Punjab province of Pakistan).

Warraichs are mostly found in West Punjab in two districts Gujrat and Gujranwala. They have 141 villages in Gujrat and 84 villages in Gujranwala. They have very strong hold in the local areas and very famous warriors.

Waraichs are found in large numbers in the Majha and Malwa (Punjab) region in the state of Punjab in India. A small number are also found in Haryana. In Pakistan, they still inhabit their strongholds along the Chenab.Historically they are landlord and farmers but are also considered fearless warriors and to date there are large numbers in the Indian and Pakistani armies.

80% of residents in the village Bhai Bakhtaur, distt. Bathinda are Waraich.

Most of the latter generations of the Waraich in Punjab (Pakistan) were converted to Islam by Sufi saints, who settled in the Chenab Valley around the year 1780 AD. In Punjab (India) and Haryana, the Waraich are mostly Sikh or Hindu.

Reference for Waraich (Warraich) - Search.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waraich66

Waraich belong to Saka or indo scythians , they invaded India with other warrior tribes Gujjar and Khambo and ruled northern west part of India establish scythian Kingdom.


----------



## omaromar

I don't see how any "great" warriors could be traced back to india. india was always conquered by the outsiders. The british, the Muslims, before that the Aryans who installed 'caste system' in Hindu culture to ensure their rule etc etc..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The Scythians are too vague as an ethnic group.

The Scythians lived in Europe weren't the same as those lived in Asia.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

And the only Europeans who are related to them are the Slavs and the Balts, the rests didn't have much to do with the Scyths as genetically proved.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nalwa

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> And the only Europeans who are related to them are the Slavs and the Balts, the rests didn't have much to do with the Scyths as genetically proved.


 
The Jatts, as is the thread starter, are said to be related to the Scythians. However as you said, these are vague estimates.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------




Muhammad Yahya said:


> I was searching about my tribe (waraich) history , which linked with Scythians , then came to know that Scythians sprung from (House of Isac).
> 
> Further major five germanic tribes Angles , Saxon,Danes,Jutes, Vandel are also Scythians.Angles and Saxon moved towards England( Angle land) and Jutes settled in Kent moved from Jutland(Danmark)


 
I think your tribe would be Jatt and Waraich would be your clan.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Nalwa said:


> The Jatts, as is the thread starter, are said to be related to the Scythians. However as you said, these are vague estimates.


 
I meant the 'only Europeans' who are related to the Scyths.

The Indo-Iranian speakers in Asia are indeed related to them.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Waraich belong to Saka or indo scythians , they invaded India with other warrior tribes Gujjar and Khambo and ruled northern west part of India establish scythian Kingdom.


 
If you dissect the preceding post carefully, and exclude the propaganda elements that creep into these unreviewed publications on the 'Net, especially Wikipedia but not confined to it, you will find some hints and clues. These are heavily overlaid by unscientific bits of folk history and completely nonsensical linguistics, like the derivation of Gujrat from Gujjar+Jat rather than an apabhramsa Gurjar-rasthra.

The proximity of Gujjar and Jat is not accidental; Gujjars too are believed to have descended from the Indo-Scythian and later, Parthian (=Pahlava) migrants.

One of the clues to the origins of the Jats is the Suryavanshi/Chandravanshi/Agnivanshi clan affiliation proposed. These were Brahmanical solutions to the problem of suddenly finding a large and war-like community living in their midst, who had no way of belonging to the tautly delineated social categories of the time. Usually, the process of absorption of the external migrants was done on the occasion of a ritual sacrifice and purification, after which the individual or the tribe was absorbed into Hindu society. This was done prominently in the case of the Rajputs, who, yet again, were absorbed in the same way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

omaromar said:


> I don't see how any "great" warriors could be traced back to india. india was always conquered by the outsiders. The british, the Muslims, before that the Aryans who installed 'caste system' in Hindu culture to ensure their rule etc etc..


 
You are quite right. There were no 'great' warriors in India, or traceable back to India. Even the outsiders, generally those who settled in the Indus Valley or next to it, became effete and were unable to resist those who came after. One or two generations was enough to render the Baluch, the Sindhi, the Punjabi, the whole lot, quite unfit for warfare, hence their tame going down to whoever came after, from west or east (the British with their Bihari recruits).

A very sound analysis. You are to be congratulated.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Nalwa

Joe Shearer said:


> If you dissect the preceding post carefully, and exclude the propaganda elements that creep into these unreviewed publications on the 'Net, especially Wikipedia but not confined to it, you will find some hints and clues. These are heavily overlaid by unscientific bits of folk history and completely nonsensical linguistics, like the derivation of Gujrat from Gujjar+Jat rather than an apabhramsa Gurjar-rasthra.
> 
> The proximity of Gujjar and Jat is not accidental; Gujjars too are believed to have descended from the Indo-Scythian and later, Parthian (=Pahlava) migrants.
> 
> One of the clues to the origins of the Jats is the Suryavanshi/Chandravanshi/Agnivanshi clan affiliation proposed. These were Brahmanical solutions to the problem of suddenly finding a large and war-like community living in their midst, who had no way of belonging to the tautly delineated social categories of the time. Usually, the process of absorption of the external migrants was done on the occasion of a ritual sacrifice and purification, after which the individual or the tribe was absorbed into Hindu society. This was done prominently in the case of the Rajputs, who, yet again, were absorbed in the same way.


 
I agree with your view. In the sources that I have accessed there was a confusion about the classification of Jatts under the Varna system. They were pastoral and agriculturalists by profession but war-like and aggressive by outlook. So it seemed that they fit into both the Vaishya and Kshatriya castes. Their late arrival complicated matters.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Scythians are too vague as an ethnic group.
> 
> The Scythians lived in Europe weren't the same as those lived in Asia.


 


ChineseTiger1986 said:


> And the only Europeans who are related to them are the Slavs and the Balts, the rests didn't have much to do with the Scyths as genetically proved.


 


ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I meant the 'only Europeans' who are related to the Scyths.
> 
> The Indo-Iranian speakers in Asia are indeed related to them.


 
The trouble seems to be that you are considering the later use of the word 'Scythian' to refer even to the Goths and other east Germans who came into Europe very late, rather than the Slavs and Balts, and also the Poles, who, of course, are to be counted among the Slavs in any case. It was never thought in early days that the Scythians were associated with ALL Europeans.

These confusing usages were not all at the same time. At least till the time of the early Roman Empire, it could be considered that the Scythians were resident in the steppes, and were a genetically mixed group. DNA and other genetic markers are quite correct in saying that the Scythians were not one ethnic group, but a mixture of several, all travelling together and mingling in their journeys on the steppes.

Earliest records and evidence show them as speaking a version of east Iranian, so it is quite right to assess them as Indo-Iranian. The version of east Iranian that they spoke had not shifted hugely from Vedic Sanskrit, as proven by the references in the Mahabharata.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Well, the Scythians from Russia and Ukraine shows genetically very Slavic, also mixing with the Uralic tribes in the North, whereas those from Asia are much more complicated, some even absorbed large amount of Turkic elements.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nalwa said:


> I agree with your view. In the sources that I have accessed there was a confusion about the classification of Jatts under the Varna system. They were pastoral and agriculturalists by profession but war-like and aggressive by outlook. So it seemed that they fit into both the Vaishya and Kshatriya castes. Their late arrival complicated matters.


 
Perhaps you could expand on these points. Our thread author might well be interested.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, the Scythians from Russia and Ukraine shows genetically very Slavic, also mixing with the Uralic tribes in the North, whereas those from Asia are much more complicated, some even absorbed large amount of Turkic elements.


 
I have no difficulty with your views. Perhaps the differences lie only in the fact that you are compressing large spans of time. The composition of the Scythians in the Trans-Oxus areas in the Mahabharata time-span, prior to 800 BC and after 1400 BC, in the post-Alexandrian years, in the 3rd century AD and immediately before and after, and later, when Siberian tribes and Mongolians had combined to form the prototypical Turkish race, was substantially difficult.

In that context, your analysis is perfectly correct; the European sections of the Scythians, who were from the outset a very mixed breed of people, underwent less ethnic admixture than their buffeted eastern, Asian sections.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Here is an unmixed Europid Scythian mummy from Tuva Siberia.












Genotypically, this mummy carried R1a1a, but phenotypically he is the Eastern European Nordic.

I guess he may look like this Russian dude when he was alive.


----------



## waraich66

History of the Scythians:
The Scythian tribes belonged to the Indo-European peoples that emerged in Inner Asia around 3,000 years ago. These fierce nomadic horsemen, related to the Persians, settled in the area of the present-day Ukraine at the end of the 8th century BC, driving out the local Cimmerian tribes, who were also of Indo-European descent. Because of their unfamiliar customs, as well as incredible military skills, the Scythians gained notoriety for their seemingly wild behaviour and rituals, especially among the Greeks who neighboured the lands taken by the Scythians. Their riotous lifestyle was fuelled by bravery, comradeship, alcohol, and cannabis. The Scythians drank their wine without adding water, which surprised the Greeks and drank to get drunk, which appalled them. This behaviour prompted a disdainful Greek to write in the 3rd century B.C., "to get drunk is to behave like a Scythian". In Histories, the Greek historian, Herodotus, who was a contemporary of the Scythians, wrote of Scythians "...(throwing hemp-seeds) onto red-hot stones. The seeds immediately smoke...The Scythians, delighted...howl loudly".

A race of warriors with no written language of their own, the Scythians carried their treasures from place to place, on horseback or in pulled wagons. Their history, carved in gold and silver, was buried in the graves of their elite. Deep burial chambers hid the remains of the deceased (of both sexes)and, as Herodotus wrote in Histories, "When their king dies...they lay the dead man in his grave on a bed...they bury one of his concubines, killing her by strangling, and his cup-bearer, cook, groom, lackey, and messenger. Also his horses...and golden cups...Having done this, they raise a vast mound of earth..." These massive kurhany were frequently crowned with a monumental stone sculpture of a warrior, symbolizing the importance of the deceased elite aristocracy.

Herodotus, who was a contemporary of the Scythians, noted that they were divided into three kingdoms: the highest-ranked were the Royal Scythians, who settled in the coastal Black Sea, especially in the region of today's Crimean Peninsula. Their taste for art and gold placed them among the greatest art patrons of the age. The Ploughmen Scythians settled in the lands inhabited by local peoples in the watersheds of the Dnipro, Dnister, and Don rivers, in Ukraine. They dealt in the farming and animal husbandry business, controlling the grain trade with Greece. It is assumed that they acquired their farming skills by assimilating the local, probably proto-Slavic tribes, who had farmed that land for millennia. The third group described by Herodotus, the Nomadic Scythians, arrived in this area last, and were not always friendly to their already settled kinsmen. Despite their military prowess and reputation for strength, skill and ferocity, the Scythians were gradually driven out of the area by the Sarmatians and Celtic tribes, who gained control of the steppes during the 3rd century B.C.
Royal Ontario Museum | Newsroom | News Releases | Legacy in Gold: Scythian Treasures from Ancient Ukraine


----------



## red_baron

The best of scythia existed in modern day Pakistan....they settled around indus river and few cooler parts in northern india

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

Well im a Kamboh (kamboja), and was pretty surprised to read on wikipedia that Kambohs were actually a royal clan of Scythians.

"However, most scholars now agree that the Kambojas were Iranians,[11][12][13] cognate with the Indo-Scythians. Kambojas are also described by scholars as being a Royal Clan of the Sakas or Scythians.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] This also seems to be confirmed from Mathura Lion Capital Inscriptions of Mahaksatrapa Rajuvula and the Rock Edict XIII of King A&#347;oka[16][21]"

Kambojas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though i know this is wikipedia and hence not the most reliable source but nevertheless the statement does seem to be backed up by reasonable sources.

I agree with one of the comments made earlier on that the word "Scythian" seems very vague. To expect peoples so far away to be the same is quite unconvincing. Perhaps Scythian is more of a culture followed by various ethnicities than an actual race itself?


----------



## Joe Shearer

@ChineseTiger1986

You might also like to look at the appearance of Scythians in the Persian royal monuments, where they are frequently shown with their peaked caps, sometimes allies and feudatories, sometimes prisoners of war. The last Achaemenid, Darius III, died while fleeing Alexander in the company of his satrap for the Scythian regions, Bessus.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Joe Shearer said:


> @ChineseTiger1986
> 
> You might also like to look at the appearance of Scythians in the Persian royal monuments, where they are frequently shown with their peaked caps, sometimes allies and feudatories, sometimes prisoners of war. The last Achaemenid, Darius III, died while fleeing Alexander in the company of his satrap for the Scythian regions, Bessus.


 
Yeah, according to some Greek and Persian historians, they were some mecenaries who worn the pointed cap.






This custom was also widely spread among the Eastern Europe.


----------



## Joe Shearer

red_baron said:


> The best of scythia existed in modern day Pakistan....they settled around indus river and few cooler parts in northern india



I am not sure why you call this 'the best of Scythia'. They came to these areas under heavy pressure for over a century from the Yueh Zhi, the Moon Clan of the Tocharians, who have been mentioned in an earlier post as the red-headed mummies who have been found in the Tarim Basin. The Yueh Zhi being themselves under extreme pressure from the Hiung Nu, reacted in three ways: one section turned left, south-east, and vanished into the Tibetan plateau; one section surrendered to the Hiung Nu and merged with their conquerors; the largest section fled south-west, displaced the Scythians from the Ferghana region and established their rule there.

The Scythians, under this pressure, moved into the territories of the Indo-Bactrian Greek kingdoms, destroyed those kingdoms, and occupied Balkh and lands south. It was at this and the next stage that the corner of Afghanistan abutting Iran and north of Baluchistan, known to the Greeks as Arachosia, came to be known, after its conquerors, Sakasthan, or Seistan.

However, there was a second phase of pressure, as the Yueh Zhi, under sustained pressure from the Hiung Nu, failed to hold their newly-acquired positions, and fled forward, again onto the hapless Scythians in Balkh, and in a replay of events of a mere few decades past, pushed out the Scythians and their allies, the Parthians (known in Indian history as the Pahlavas). The Scythians, unable to expand south-west, across the desert into the strong Seleucid kingdom, moved east instead, and the map shows the situation at this stage, when the Yueh Zhi were still at Balkh and the Scytho-Parthians were ruling in western India.

Please note the location of their rule in India and correct the impression that it was precisely and exactly bounded by the Indus Valley; that valley happened to be part of their possessions, along with much more to the east and portions to the west. It is probably these tribes, too powerful to be left out, already favourably inclined towards the heresy of Buddhism from their earlier days in Ferghana, were then absorbed into the Hindu fold by priests who arranged for them to be converted to Hinduism, contrary to the belief that to be a Hindu one was born one, there was no process of conversion possible. No details of these conversion rituals exist; it is not known whether the entire tribe was converted or only some limited members or even only the Satrap.

The occurrence of Jats and Gujjars in Indian history is only from this point onwards, and leads to tempting speculations.



Bamxa said:


> Well im a Kamboh (kamboja), and was pretty surprised to read on wikipedia that Kambohs were actually a royal clan of Scythians.
> 
> "However, most scholars now agree that the Kambojas were Iranians,[11][12][13] cognate with the Indo-Scythians. Kambojas are also described by scholars as being a Royal Clan of the Sakas or Scythians.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] This also seems to be confirmed from Mathura Lion Capital Inscriptions of Mahaksatrapa Rajuvula and the Rock Edict XIII of King A&#347;oka[16][21]"
> 
> Kambojas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Though i know this is wikipedia and hence not the most reliable source but nevertheless the statement does seem to be backed up by reasonable sources.



An interesting observation. Have you read the thread carefully so far?

The connection of the Kamboja, and the Scythian, and the Iranian, or east Iranian, is clear from fairly ancient days. Since you are able to access Wikipedia, and it is not clear what other references you have ready at hand, it is appropriate to start with Wikipedia and follow up the sources listed on your own, fanning out as you follow the references. In this case, having looked up Kamboja, you may as well look up Parama Kamboja.

You will find that in the tribal roll-call of the Battle of Kurukshetra, the Uttara Madra and the Parama Kamboja are both mentioned (along with the Madra and the Kamboja). These are people straddling the mountain ranges between present-day north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan and Tajikistan, the Parama Kamboja resident around the valley of Ferghana. The Parama Kamboja are mentioned as great horsemen; the reputation of the Ferghana valley for producing the greatest horses in central Asia is found as late as Babur, in the fifteenth century. They are also the source of blankets (Kambal), suitable for self-indulgence or for making magnificent gifts. Parama Kamboja horses were the best available, and they themselves were outstanding in battle. They were excellent cavalrymen, and the Mahabharata describes their charges as irresistible. The Mahabharata described how, after the patriarch Bhishma was defeated in battle and lay wounded, waiting to die, the Parama Kamboja prince leading his contingent was made commander in chief, and dressed the Kaurava ranks in different formations while he was alive and in charge; evidently, his position demanded that he fight in a chariot, as he did so. He, too, died in battle, to the arrows of Arjuna, falling out of his chariot like a pine-tree.

Their language was similar to the Indians, but differed in some respects. This helps to tie down the description even further. The Parama Kamboja in later years were clearly part of the Scythian confederacy, and their language was thought to be east Iranian; not too difficult to reconcile to a situation where passages of the Zend Avesta, and passages of the Rig Veda, its older hymns specially, closely resemble each other (Avestan was written neither in western nor in eastern Iranian, but forms a branch of the Iranian languages on its own). So east Iranian is easy to position as a language which could be understood by clans living on both sides of the mountains, but with the clans on the Indian side gradually drawing away and their language gradually mutating away towards what eventually became the Paninian 'classic' Sanskrit.

The Parama Kamboja evidently survived as a clan of some distinction among the Scythian confederacy, either as an entire clan or as a group of families that contributed leaders and kings. However, before identifying that social group with today's Kamboh in Potohar, we need to remind ourselves that another, more familiar tribe, the Kamboja-not-the-Param, far less exotic, was also around, and also prominent. Today's Kamboh need not be exclusively tied to either the plain-vanilla Kamboja or their exotic cousins across the mountains the Parama Kamboja.



Bamxa said:


> I agree with one of the comments made earlier on that the word "Scythian" seems very vague. To expect peoples so far away to be the same is quite unconvincing. Perhaps Scythian is more of a culture followed by various ethnicities than an actual race itself?


 
Perfect! 

I wish I had thought of this very apt wording!

You do realise that you have not only described Scythians but Indo-Aryans as well!!! They, too, were not a race, but were several races; in addition, beyond your formulation, they were even several cultures, the whole unified by an adoption of one language system.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waraich66

Joe Shearer said:


> I am not sure why you call this 'the best of Scythia'. They came to these areas under heavy pressure for over a century from the Yueh Zhi, the Moon Clan of the Tocharians, who have been mentioned in an earlier post as the red-headed mummies who have been found in the Tarim Basin. The Yueh Zhi being themselves under extreme pressure from the Hiung Nu, reacted in three ways: one section turned left, south-east, and vanished into the Tibetan plateau; one section surrendered to the Hiung Nu and merged with their conquerors; the largest section fled south-west, displaced the Scythians from the Ferghana region and established their rule there.
> 
> The Scythians, under this pressure, moved into the territories of the Indo-Bactrian Greek kingdoms, destroyed those kingdoms, and occupied Balkh and lands south. It was at this and the next stage that the corner of Afghanistan abutting Iran and north of Baluchistan, known to the Greeks as Arachosia, came to be known, after its conquerors, Sakasthan, or Seistan.
> 
> However, there was a second phase of pressure, as the Yueh Zhi, under sustained pressure from the Hiung Nu, failed to hold their newly-acquired positions, and fled forward, again onto the hapless Scythians in Balkh, and in a replay of events of a mere few decades past, pushed out the Scythians and their allies, the Parthians (known in Indian history as the Pahlavas). The Scythians, unable to expand south-west, across the desert into the strong Seleucid kingdom, moved east instead, and the map shows the situation at this stage, when the Yueh Zhi were still at Balkh and the Scytho-Parthians were ruling in western India.
> 
> Please note the location of their rule in India and correct the impression that it was precisely and exactly bounded by the Indus Valley; that valley happened to be part of their possessions, along with much more to the east and portions to the west. It is probably these tribes, too powerful to be left out, already favourably inclined towards the heresy of Buddhism from their earlier days in Ferghana, were then absorbed into the Hindu fold by priests who arranged for them to be converted to Hinduism, contrary to the belief that to be a Hindu one was born one, there was no process of conversion possible. No details of these conversion rituals exist; it is not known whether the entire tribe was converted or only some limited members or even only the Satrap.
> 
> The occurrence of Jats and Gujjars in Indian history is only from this point onwards, and leads to tempting speculations.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting observation. Have you read the thread carefully so far?
> 
> The connection of the Kamboja, and the Scythian, and the Iranian, or east Iranian, is clear from fairly ancient days. Since you are able to access Wikipedia, and it is not clear what other references you have ready at hand, it is appropriate to start with Wikipedia and follow up the sources listed on your own, fanning out as you follow the references. In this case, having looked up Kamboja, you may as well look up Parama Kamboja.
> 
> You will find that in the tribal roll-call of the Battle of Kurukshetra, the Uttara Madra and the Parama Kamboja are both mentioned (along with the Madra and the Kamboja). These are people straddling the mountain ranges between present-day north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan and Tajikistan, the Parama Kamboja resident around the valley of Ferghana. The Parama Kamboja are mentioned as great horsemen; the reputation of the Ferghana valley for producing the greatest horses in central Asia is found as late as Babur, in the fifteenth century. They are also the source of blankets (Kambal), suitable for self-indulgence or for making magnificent gifts. Parama Kamboja horses were the best available, and they themselves were outstanding in battle. They were excellent cavalrymen, and the Mahabharata describes their charges as irresistible. The Mahabharata described how, after the patriarch Bhishma was defeated in battle and lay wounded, waiting to die, the Parama Kamboja prince leading his contingent was made commander in chief, and dressed the Kaurava ranks in different formations while he was alive and in charge; evidently, his position demanded that he fight in a chariot, as he did so. He, too, died in battle, to the arrows of Arjuna, falling out of his chariot like a pine-tree.
> 
> Their language was similar to the Indians, but differed in some respects. This helps to tie down the description even further. The Parama Kamboja in later years were clearly part of the Scythian confederacy, and their language was thought to be east Iranian; not too difficult to reconcile to a situation where passages of the Zend Avesta, and passages of the Rig Veda, its older hymns specially, closely resemble each other (Avestan was written neither in western nor in eastern Iranian, but forms a branch of the Iranian languages on its own). So east Iranian is easy to position as a language which could be understood by clans living on both sides of the mountains, but with the clans on the Indian side gradually drawing away and their language gradually mutating away towards what eventually became the Paninian 'classic' Sanskrit.
> 
> The Parama Kamboja evidently survived as a clan of some distinction among the Scythian confederacy, either as an entire clan or as a group of families that contributed leaders and kings. However, before identifying that social group with today's Kamboh in Potohar, we need to remind ourselves that another, more familiar tribe, the Kamboja-not-the-Param, far less exotic, was also around, and also prominent. Today's Kamboh need not be exclusively tied to either the plain-vanilla Kamboja or their exotic cousins across the mountains the Parama Kamboja.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> I wish I had thought of this very apt wording!
> 
> You do realise that you have not only described Scythians but Indo-Aryans as well!!! They, too, were not a race, but were several races; in addition, beyond your formulation, they were even several cultures, the whole unified by an adoption of one language system.


 
Intresting , i was considering my self only have intrest in history of warrior nations lol


----------



## Joe Shearer

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Intresting , i was considering my self only have intrest in history of warrior nations lol


 
There's nothing called a warrior nation, only groups of people who from time to time have a military advantage over their neighbours. If you find yourself thinking of martial races, read Major A. H. Amin on the subject; he sets that illusion right pretty sharply!! :-D


----------



## waraich66

Joe Shearer said:


> There's nothing called a warrior nation, only groups of people who from time to time have a military advantage over their neighbours. If you find yourself thinking of martial races, read Major A. H. Amin on the subject; he sets that illusion right pretty sharply!! :-D


 
I think only nations well prepered for wars could servive , hence warrior nation concept is right .


----------



## Vassnti

Joe Shearer said:


> There's nothing called a warrior nation, only groups of people who from time to time have a military advantage over their neighbours. If you find yourself thinking of martial races, read Major A. H. Amin on the subject; he sets that illusion right pretty sharply!! :-D


 
I asume you mean Major A. H. Amin coments on Indian history?



> It may be noted that the toughest military resistance to the English East India Company as far as the Muslims were concerned was offered in South India by Mysore, an area where the Muslims were a minority! But after 1885 the Madras Army which had about 30 % Muslims was declared non martial by the British and replaced by Punjabis.The toughest resistance to the Sikhs in Punjab was offered by the Seraiki Pathan, Saddozai/Durrani Muslims of Multan during the period 1799-1818.But very few of these Seraiki Muslims enlisted in the British Indian Army.Were these Muslims non martial,as I unfortunately heard being confidently asserted by many officers in my army career!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Vassnti said:


> I asume you mean Major A. H. Amin coments on Indian history?


 
Yes. 

The whole article, in fact.


----------



## Kambojaric

Informative topic. Regarding Kambojas this map shows four Kamboja kingdoms, with one placed in modern day Punjab being classified as an "Indian" kingdom, whilst the other three are "foreign kingdoms". Apparently there have also been attempts to link Cambyses and other Persian kings as Kambojas. Unfortunatly my knowledge on the ancient Kambojas is rather limited and cant verify this info from anywhere else.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Joe Shearer said:


> Yes.
> 
> The whole article, in fact.



_It is rather interesting, the whole article, that is. Where did you read it? Just being curious?_



Bamxa said:


> Informative topic. Regarding Kambojas this map shows four Kamboja kingdoms, with one placed in modern day Punjab being classified as an "Indian" kingdom, whilst the other three are "foreign kingdoms". Apparently there have also been attempts to link Cambyses and other Persian kings as Kambojas. Unfortunatly my knowledge on the ancient Kambojas is rather limited and cant verify this info from anywhere else.


 
_I am personally hugely intrigued by the Kamboja and by allied east Iranian speaking people, and by subsequent historical developments that may have affected them. Yes, there have been links to Cambyses, both linguistic/etymological as well as cultural, ethnic and geographical. The Medes, too, have been drawn in, rather less convincingly, in my opinion. 

The other day, reading about the history of the north-east, I suddenly found myself reading a passage which stated that at that time, the Duars (hill country just below the lowest range of the eastern Himalayas) was dominated by the Kamboja! It was such a matter of fact statement in that original text that it was all the more astonishing!_


----------



## Manas

Bamxa said:


> Informative topic. Regarding Kambojas this map shows four Kamboja kingdoms, with one placed in modern day Punjab being classified as an "Indian" kingdom, whilst the other three are "foreign kingdoms". Apparently there have also been attempts to link Cambyses and other Persian kings as Kambojas. Unfortunatly my knowledge on the ancient Kambojas is rather limited and cant verify this info from anywhere else.



The map isn't accurate.

It has gives three names of Odisha simultaneously , ...Kalinga, Utkala and Odra . But in fact they were the names of the Odisha is different timelines.


----------



## ThunderCat

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Here is an unmixed Europid Scythian mummy from Tuva Siberia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genotypically, this mummy carried R1a1a, but phenotypically he is the Eastern European Nordic.
> 
> I guess he may look like this Russian dude when he was alive.


 
This individual looks like he's of Scandinavian ancestry. I don't mean by hair but more by facial phenotype. It's a well known fact that northwest russians are withicly germanic/scandanavian wheras the other 2 are slavic and possibly Iranic since southern russia was inhabbitted by iranic peoples. They are however binded by common language and culture much like an "arab" from sudan to that of an arab from lebanon


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ThunderCat said:


> This individual looks like he's of Scandinavian ancestry. I don't mean by hair but more by facial phenotype. It's a well known fact that northwest russians are withicly germanic/scandanavian wheras the other 2 are slavic and possibly Iranic since southern russia was inhabbitted by iranic peoples. They are however binded by common language and culture much like an "arab" from sudan to that of an arab from lebanon



Well, the genetic test shows that the modern Russians carry very little Germanic gene, so most of those blonde/blue eyed Russian individuals may not be descended from the ancient Germanics, but from the ancient Kurgan groups, whom Scythians also descended from.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SherAli

C Asians are the greatest warriors in history, especially the Turks

Middle Easterners are next (excluding Armenians)

On another note, euros are eunuch cowards, the most cowardly "people" in history


----------



## ThunderCat

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, the genetic test shows that the modern Russians carry very little Germanic gene, so most of those blonde/blue eyed Russian individuals may not be descended from the ancient Germanics, but from the ancient Kurgan groups, whom Scythians also descended from.



Which genetic test? It's well known that northwestern Russians are Germanic. Even the name Russ is supposed to have come from the ancient Viking tribe. I also actually take back my statement that hair color doesn't count.

Actually Nordic peoples have much higher frequencies of blond hair, much more than any other peoples on the planet and Northwestern Russians being Nordic are descended from those. 

Most IE speaking people today descend from ancient Kurgan groups but split into different ethno-linguistic groups. The Scythians were an Iranic people.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ThunderCat said:


> Which genetic test? It's well known that northwestern Russians are Germanic. Even the name Russ is supposed to have come from the ancient Viking tribe. I also actually take back my statement that hair color doesn't count.
> 
> Actually Nordic peoples have much higher frequencies of blond hair, much more than any other peoples on the planet and Northwestern Russians being Nordic are descended from those.
> 
> Most IE speaking people today descend from ancient Kurgan groups but split into different ethno-linguistic groups. The Scythians were an Iranic people.



Took your time to reply, didn't you? Went away?


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Best sources for Scythians are Herodotos' book Historiae and hippokrates' book " of airs, waters and places".

Scythians represent the clans living northern steppes of Black Sea (Pontus Euxine) and Massagetae represent the nomadic clans living beyond Caspian Sea. South Asian people are associated with those Massagetae people, have No direct relationship with Scythians and their descendants Sarmatians.

From the 1st millenium A.D. Those Caucasoid clans of eurasian steppes were replaced by immigrating East Asian nations/clans.


----------



## Wright

SherAli said:


> C Asians are the greatest warriors in history, especially the Turks
> 
> *Middle Easterners *are next (excluding Armenians)
> 
> On another note, *euros are eunuch cowards*, the most cowardly "people" in history




Euros controlled the ME at one point. The UK, France, Germany, etc were unmatched in power during WW2. And even now the ME is outclassed in military tech. 

Tiny portugal had an empire larger then any Arab or Turkic one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alienoz_TR

HTML:







Wright said:


> Euros controlled the ME at one point. The UK, France, Germany, etc were unmatched in power during WW2. And even now the ME is outclassed in military tech.
> 
> Tiny portugal had an empire larger then any Arab or Turkic one.



From Turkish/Turkic historic perspective, pre-16th century European powers were not powers. Against Nomadic confederations, Europeans were easy preys. those chivalrious knights were Hiding behind walls against bunch of poor nomads.

Same applies to Scythians. Herodotos tells how Scythians and Massagetae fought against mighty Persian Empire and won.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Alienoz_TR said:


> HTML:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Turkish/Turkic historic perspective, pre-16th century European powers were not powers. Against Nomadic confederations, Europeans were easy preys. those chivalrious knights were Hiding behind walls against bunch of poor nomads.
> 
> Same applies to Scythians. Herodotos tells how Scythians and Massagetae fought against mighty Persian Empire and won.




In two brief paragraphs, you managed both an over-simplification as well as a distortion. 

Good going.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Joe Shearer said:


> In two brief paragraphs, you managed both an over-simplification as well as a distortion.
> 
> Good going.



Nomadic confederations defeated Persian Empire in 6th century BC. West Roman Empire in 451, East Roman Empire in 1071. Then came Mongols, ravaging steppes till Central Europe only stopped to fight eachother.

Marco Polo explains each Mongol horseman carried 60 arrows in their "sadak". That means 20.000 x 60 bullet into one target. Nomads were the machineguns of middle ages. Until the artillery and firearms were invented. 

They achieved these Victories with minimal losses most of the time.


----------



## Srinivas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Nomadic confederations defeated Persian Empire in 6th century BC. West Roman Empire in 451, East Roman Empire in 1071. Then came Mongols, ravaging steppes till Central Europe only stopped to fight eachother.
> 
> Marco Polo explains each Mongol horseman carried 60 arrows in their "sadak". That means 20.000 x 60 bullet into one target. Nomads were the machineguns of middle ages. Until the artillery and firearms were invented.
> 
> They achieved these Victories with minimal losses most of the time.



Mongols used to run rings round the enemy army and harass them with arrows, When the enemy army try to chase them they used hit and run tactics(parathion shot) .


----------



## Alienoz_TR

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Mongols used to run rings round the enemy army and harass them with arrows, When the enemy army try to chase them they used hit and run tactics(parathion shot) .



Thank you for mentioning hit and run tactics. Nomads were practicing war strategies during the hunting games. One side were pursuing the animals, other side were ambushing the animals. So, it is not a simple hit and run but rather more complicated hunting strategy.

Against Persian Empire, Scythians pulled their foes into inner Eurasian steppes. On the way Persian Army disintegrated, then pursuers became pursued. Darius escaped death barely crossing Danube.

For 1071 manzikert war, Center of the byzantine army moved forward while pursuing the withdrawing Seljuk forces, leaving left and right wing of Byzantine army behind. Byzantine army entered into sharp triangle formation. Which is effective against stationed infantry, but not against horse archers. Reinforcements of Seljuk army surrounded Byzantine from the angles. 

Kalka River (1223) is another Good example for hit and run tactics. Victory of small numbers against great numbers with minimal losses.


----------



## Black Widow

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them. A list of nations :
> 
> In Europe
> Reality - the nascent Turks (Gok Turk back then) and the Mongols were living near the Tien Shan and Altai range. This is not to say that populations did not mix. The finding of red-haired mummies in the Gobi proves this, but it is clear that central Asia, especially between the Oxus and Jaxartes river and most of Afghanistan was Ancient Scythia, and that the Scythians were nomadic caucosoids.






So powerful and great warrior, and there culture society is not alive now.? `Power is not only ingredient for survival of culture...


----------



## retaxis

Powerful nations stick around they don't fade into dust after a few years. Mongols were probably the most powerful nation at one time but unlike many other countries which can come back after disaster, once the mongol capital of Karakorum was sacked...well the rest is history.

_The Yuan remnants retreated to Mongolia after the fall of Yingchang to the Ming in 1370. Under the name Northern Yuan the Mongols resisted the Ming. The Ming and the Northern Yuan denied each other's legitimacy as emperors of China. The Ming army pursued the Northern Yuan forces into Mongolia in 1372, but was defeated by the latter under Ayushridar and Köke Temür. They tried again in 1380, ultimately winning a decisive victory over Northern Yuan in 1388. Many Mongols were taken prisoner, and Karakorum (the Northern Yuan capital) was sacked in 1380._


----------



## farooqalvi

The Sakas might not be THE greatest warriors of the world; but they were CERTAINLY great people, great warriors, good rulers and apparently good statesmen from the remote times of their history, circa 750 BCE till today. They produced many lines of kings, emperors, kings of kings, and viceroys in the ancient history of Pakistan, Iran, Bactria, Bharat and many countries of Europe and Eurasia, which is not possible without being good warriors in those remote times. They gave birth to the names Scythia, Indo-Scythia, Saka-dvipa (to Sindh and Kathiawar in Pakistan and Bharat) and Scythia and Little Scythia (in Eurasia). For centuries they inhabited Sogdiana (Saka Tigrakhuda), Drangiana (Saka Haumavarka or Saka Seikistana), and north of Black and Caspian Seas (Saka Taradarya); but when, under world wide migratory movements, they had to move, they occupied Bactria, thus ending Bactrian-Greek Empire. When forced to leave that, they conquered Arachosia (presently in Afghanistan), Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir (present Pakistan) and Kathiawar (presently in Bharat), and moved from Black Sea into Europe later to form Czechoslovakia and now Czech Republic. They were the forbearers of many great races like Parthians, Pahlvas, Rajputs, Jats, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. The warlike history of these races is well-known to the world. 
They were not from India; they invaded India and invaded Europe. 
They established their own kingdoms and empires as in Gandhara (Pakistan), and founded their own era, namely Azes Era, now borrowed by Brahmans as Bikrami era. When the opponent was stronger, they shared power with them as equals or even as viceroys. That proves their statesmanship. Thus they ruled from 135 BC to about 60 AD as kings and emperors over Bactria, Gandhara and Sakadvipa, and later as viceroys of Kushans and still later as viceroys of Parthians and Pahlvas. Still later, faced with the invasions of Hunas and Gurjaras, they became Rajputs and retreated to the difficult areas of the neighboring Thar Desert and Aravelli Range, thus giving it the name Rajputana. They mixed with the later invading races Kushanas and Parthians so much so that it is difficult to differentiate one from the other. Kushanas and Yueh-Chi later turned into Jats. There is still a village Kushana of the Jats near Gujrat bye-pass. 
Farooq Alvi


----------



## illusion8

farooqalvi said:


> The Sakas might not be THE greatest warriors of the world; but they were CERTAINLY great people, great warriors, good rulers and apparently good statesmen from the remote times of their history, circa 750 BCE till today. They produced many lines of kings, emperors, kings of kings, and viceroys in the ancient history of Pakistan, Iran, Bactria, Bharat and many countries of Europe and Eurasia, which is not possible without being good warriors in those remote times. They gave birth to the names Scythia, Indo-Scythia, Saka-dvipa (to Sindh and Kathiawar in Pakistan and Bharat) and Scythia and Little Scythia (in Eurasia). For centuries they inhabited Sogdiana (Saka Tigrakhuda), Drangiana (Saka Haumavarka or Saka Seikistana), and north of Black and Caspian Seas (Saka Taradarya); but when, under world wide migratory movements, they had to move, they occupied Bactria, thus ending Bactrian-Greek Empire. When forced to leave that, they conquered Arachosia (presently in Afghanistan), Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir (present Pakistan) and Kathiawar (presently in Bharat), and moved from Black Sea into Europe later to form Czechoslovakia and now Czech Republic. They were the forbearers of many great races like Parthians, Pahlvas, Rajputs, Jats, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. The warlike history of these races is well-known to the world.
> They were not from India; they invaded India and invaded Europe.
> They established their own kingdoms and empires as in Gandhara (Pakistan), and founded their own era, namely Azes Era, now borrowed by Brahmans as Bikrami era. When the opponent was stronger, they shared power with them as equals or even as viceroys. That proves their statesmanship. Thus they ruled from 135 BC to about 60 AD as kings and emperors over Bactria, Gandhara and Sakadvipa, and later as viceroys of Kushans and still later as viceroys of Parthians and Pahlvas. Still later, faced with the invasions of Hunas and Gurjaras, they became Rajputs and retreated to the difficult areas of the neighboring Thar Desert and Aravelli Range, thus giving it the name Rajputana. They mixed with the later invading races Kushanas and Parthians so much so that it is difficult to differentiate one from the other. Kushanas and Yueh-Chi later turned into Jats. There is still a village Kushana of the Jats near Gujrat bye-pass.
> Farooq Alvi



Ancient history of Pakistan....circa 1947????

http://www.defence.pk/forums/social-issues-current-events/182672-murder-history-pakistan.html


----------



## farooqalvi

Re: Aryan Migration Theory Is Controversial  It is NOT.

Aryan migration theory is not controversial. They spoke Sanskrit, a European language, which gave birth in India to the term Indo-European. Had Aryans been Indians, the European language Sanskrit would not have come to India. And the word Indo-European would not have come to Indian languages. 
They are a Caucasian white race, which cannot breed in Indian environments; nor could such a race breed in Tibet (as they some times claim) since that country breeds mongoloids, poles apart from Aryans; nor do Tibetans speak Indo-European languages. 
India carries the sense of black; that is why Homer called Indians the Eastern Ethiopians; and Hafiz Shirazi used the word Hindu (a geographical term, meaning Indian) in the sense of black in his famous couplet:
Agar aan Turke Shirazi bdast aarad dil-e ma ra
Bkhal-e hindu-esh bakhsham Samarqand-o Bukhara ra 
(If I get that Turk sweetheart of Shiraz, I shall bestow Samarqand and Bukhara in return for her black mole).
The same sense has been repeated in our Urdu poet Zameer Jaffarys couplets:
Ham ke khal-e rukh-e Hindu ke fidai thehre
Usne jab war kia, ham ne usse piar kia
Ham se dervish bnate kehan atom bomb
Haan magar teri muhabbat ne hame khwar kia

So India means country of the black. It is because Dravidians lived here in ancient times. 
Even the hymns of Rigveda curse these black natives, calling them daesyos (desi, meaning natives). The European race Aryas, called their European language Sanskrit deobani (the language of gods) and called the native Indian languages as serpabani and mridravaja, ie, the language of the serpents and a strange un-intelligible language. 
Only Brahmans strive to make it controversial, with a malafide intention to continue to pretend to be original Indians, and hence the owners of India. They themselves know that they are continuing a false claim of having Indian origin or even being Indians: it is part of history that Nehru, as PM of India, said to American Ambassador Galbraith, I am the last Englishman to rule over India.
Farooq Alvi


RE: Shri Kashi Prasad Jaisawal, an eminent historian, has refer them as Bharshiva who put the Shivalinga on their shoulder and committed to free the India from forgien yoke like Kushan and other Shaka Khastrpa.

It is sad that any historian should believe in this impossible story that any tribe (why not Kshatryas and Brahmans?) Put the Shivalinga on their shoulder and commit to free India from foreign yoke like Kushan and other Shaka Kshatrpa. Mythology has it that Shivalinga (ie, Mahadevas penis) was so large that Vishnu-god and Brahma-god once tried to measure its length, but Brahma failed to find its end; Stanley Wolpert tells us that Shiva surreptitiously showed this linga to the wives of many Brahmans and made them unfaithful to their husbands (and faithful to himself). 
Such are only Brahmanic flights of fantacy. The fact can be judged as under:
The respectable Warraich tribe is a Muslim tribe of the Jats. The words Jat and Rajput sprung up into history around 600 AD, ie, after the decline of the successive Saka, Kushana, empires, kingdoms and viceroyalties, under. So, most probably, they sprung from those two great tribes: Rajputs from Sakas and Jats from Kushanas. One of the proofs is the presence of Kushana or Kusana clan among the jats; a village Kusana apparently of the Kusana Jats still exists near Gujrat bye-pass. Otherwise, the origin of Rajputs and Jats becomes difficult to trace, and extinction of Saka and Kushana populations becomes difficult to explain whose number, even in those remote times (450BC), was about 30 lacs. This will also explain the springing up of Rajisthan and Rajputana with the extinction of the names Scythia, Indo-Scythia and Sakadvipa. This will also explain why Rajputs and Jats are so closely mixed up and why these two are so widely different from the Brahmans and Kshatryas in their tribal customs and individual natures. And why it was Brhaman Dahir (and no Rajput or Jat) who had married his real sister. And why the Rajputs and Jats of Sindh so easily went to the side of Muhammad bin Qasim against Dahir, and why they jubilated over Dahirs defeat and death. Jats are also reported (by Abullah Ibn Masud) to have met the Holy Prophet, and their presence in the Arab world as al-Zutt in Antioch, Yemen and Najran (between Mecca and Yemen). So their connection with any of Abrahams sons is not very improbable, as honorable Muhammad Yahya, tells us with Isaac. 
In this connection, it is important to note that the words Jutland, Jutes, Eucii, Saxones Eucii, Eotenas, Eudosis, etc, occur with the description of Scythians or Sakas in Europe. In Pakistan history the Kushanas are a branch of bigger race Yueh-chi. It seems that this Yueh-chi might have taken the shape of Jute, Jueti (meaning lamp or light) and then jati and Jat, which is the collective name of hundreds of small tribe names, like Yueh-chi of old. 
Farooq Alvi


----------



## bronxbull

what random bullshit,

ur ignorance can cloud the sun off its brightness.


----------



## Black Widow

omaromar said:


> I don't see how any "great" warriors could be traced back to india. india was always conquered by the outsiders. The british, the Muslims, before that the Aryans who installed 'caste system' in Hindu culture to ensure their rule etc etc..






OMG, Does history of India start from M B Quasim in Canada??? Son Indian civilization is 10,000-20,000 year old, first read the history then open your mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MST

This thread is nothing but self eulogizing at its best. I can only laugh at threads which call those who lived 3000 years ago as greatest warriors of the world without giving any criteria on what makes them great warriors. 

People forget the role of tools and technology. The Greeks won't be great had they not have their long spears and shields. Mongols won't be great without their horse archers and siege weapons. And the Europeans won't have colonized the world without the expert use of gun powder. 

They also ignore the fact that 3000 years ago the world population was almost 1000 times less than what it is today. Most areas had zero population and the only danger was that from wild predators. So migrating or occupying large areas was not that difficult.

These kind of stupid labels trying to prove one race better than the other is a joke in my eyes. The greatest warriors of the world are the humans today armed with Nuclear weapons. Never has any warrior had such a power in their hands. And in future the no one will be able to stand the future human with laser weapons, hypersonic space planes etc as the greatest warriors unless we come across some Aliens armed with God knows what.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqalvi

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them. A list of nations :
> 
> In Europe
> 
> Celtic - lived in Scythia, as per ancient Irish annals; the Tuatha de Danann even brought back a contingent of Scythians with them
> 
> Germanic tribes - descended from Scythian tribes that wandered over into Europe from little Scythia, which was near the Black Sea; prior to that these Scythians had lived in what is today Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but after fighting the Scythian tribe of Massagetae (i.e. 'great getae'), they migrated west. They were chasing another mysterious people,the Cimmerians, from whom the Welsh(Cymru) claim, and certain Germanic tribes (Sugambri) trace, their descent.
> 
> Scandinavia - most of the pantheon worshipped by the Svearna (ancestors of the Swedes) were people called the Aesir. They came from the East and fought with the extant Vanir. Odin (Wotan) and Thor were from this family. Additionally the Gotarna of Southern Sweden were Goths and related to the Getae of Thrace, the Visigoth and Ostrogoths and the Massagetae of Asia.
> 
> Saxons - a tribe not mentioned by name in ancient history of tribes but evident that Sakson could be another spelling ie sons of Saka (the ancient and proper spelling of Scythian). Even Saxon historians described the men sent back to mainland Europe to get more men for the invasion and settlement of Briton as returning to Scythia
> 
> Sarmatians - the lands of the Poles and Russians was ancient Sarmatia; Sarmatians were the product of Scythian men and Amazon women, hence the cultural and language differences between Germanics and Slavs
> 
> In Asia
> 
> Parthians - originally united around the Pars tribe, Iran was also ruled by a Scythian dynasty in the form of the Parthians, who were a clan from the Dahae tribe. The Dahae are linked to the Goths, as per a strange paragraph in the the Annals and Deeds of the Goths.
> 
> Jat & Rajput tribes - of northern India, especially the Punjab have been linked by British ethnographers to Scythian origins, although heavily mixed with the pre-Indo European Dravidian population; probably have Kushan, Chionite, & Massagetae blood.
> 
> Afghans - still settled in the area where the Sakas (i.e. Scythian) migrated; probably more likely to be descended from the Massagetae, Scythians and especially the Hephthalites (another Scythic nation), a brutal, warlike people that savaged both the Persians and the Turks till the two united and destroyed their kingdom.
> 
> In essence, the nation of Scyths (Sakas) spread from the western coast of Ireland to the bay of Bengal.
> 
> Misconception - central asia was exclusively turco-mongol in ancient times
> 
> Reality - the nascent Turks (Gok Turk back then) and the Mongols were living near the Tien Shan and Altai range. This is not to say that populations did not mix. The finding of red-haired mummies in the Gobi proves this, but it is clear that central Asia, especially between the Oxus and Jaxartes river and most of Afghanistan was Ancient Scythia, and that the Scythians were nomadic caucosoids.



RE: "You are the best community that has been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allah." [Aal-e-Imran, 3:110]

Herein Allah tells the followers of the Holy Prophet (pbuh): You are the best community raised for mankind; and the qualities which make them the best are very briefly listed as under: 
1.	You enjoin good, ie, truth, honesty, equality of humans, justice to all, irrespective of color, creed, caste and country; patience, tolerance, love for all.
2.	You forbid evil, ie, falsehood; prejudice of color, creed, caste or country.
3.	You believe in Allah  This belief is the root of the above-listed qualities. Allah is the god of all the worlds, all universes, all existence and inexistence, of beginning and end, of time and timeless, of space and space-less. He is not the god of a particular place, race, country, creed or caste. Hence He does not like any prejudice of any person against any of his creations. The only criterion for ones greatness or lowness is the goodness or badness of ones deeds. 
Such qualities, which now have become the norms of ideal human society, were not the values of the pre-Muslim human world. All communities, without fail, loved only their own communities and hated all others. This is even today observable in many nations. The present-day norms and values of human society owe a lot to the Holy Prophet and his followers, who initiated and spread such values which took humanity much higher than the ancient bestial and animal-like values of hatred and revenge, giving them norms of love and forgiveness. Halal haram in human relations also owes it existence and prevalence in human society because of this community, addressed by Allah 
Farooq Alvi


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.

Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.


----------



## farooqalvi

RE: "You are the best community that has been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allah." [Aal-e-Imran, 3:110]

Herein Allah tells the followers of the Holy Prophet (pbuh): You are the best community raised for mankind; and the qualities which make them the best are very briefly listed as under: 
1.	You enjoin good, ie, truth, honesty, equality of humans, justice to all, irrespective of color, creed, caste and country; patience, tolerance, love for all.
2.	You forbid evil, ie, falsehood; prejudice of color, creed, caste or country.
3.	You believe in Allah  This belief is the root of the above-listed qualities. Allah is the god of all the worlds, all universes, all existence and inexistence, of beginning and end, of time and timeless, of space and space-less. He is not the god of a particular place, race, country, creed or caste. Hence He does not like any prejudice of any person against any of his creations. The only criterion for ones greatness or lowness is the goodness or badness of ones deeds. 
Such qualities, which now have become the norms of ideal human society, were not the values of the pre-Muslim human world. All communities, without fail, loved only their own communities and hated all others. This is even today observable in many nations. The present-day norms and values of human society owe a lot to the Holy Prophet and his followers, who initiated and spread such values which took humanity much higher than the ancient bestial and animal-like values of hatred and revenge, giving them norms of love and forgiveness. Halal haram in human relations also owes its existence and prevalence in human society because of this community, the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), which has been addressed in this verse by Allah. 
Farooq alvi


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Monkey D Luffy said:


> Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.
> 
> Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.



Similiar to other indo-pak races... read the previous pages to understand whats going on... also arent pashtuns supposed to be frm bani israel or something?


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Similiar to other indo-pak races... read the previous pages to understand whats going on... also arent pashtuns supposed to be frm bani israel or something?



I know there are countless nations who claim to be descendants of schythians but i am talking about eastern saka people of ancient bactria (present day afghanistan). Bani israel theory is false one , has been proven wrong and has no academic value ....


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Monkey D Luffy said:


> I know there are countless nations who claim to be descendants of schythians but i am talking about eastern saka people of ancient bactria (present day afghanistan). Bani israel theory is false one , has been proven wrong and has no academic value ....



Tht means the jatts and Rajputs are your brothers....


----------



## Dushmann

So are Pakistanis and Afghans (Pashtuns) descendents of greatest warriors of world? (who were defeated by few barbaric invading tribes and forcefully made to convert to a foreign religion)


----------



## Dushmann

Monkey D Luffy said:


> Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.
> 
> Parthians, ossesitians and pashtuns are considered schythian or saka. Word saka means "blood brother" in pashto.



does that come under 'Iranians'? Wikipedia says Afghans are Iranic people.


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Dushmann said:


> does that come under 'Iranic people'?



yes , sakas were iranian people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dushmann

Monkey D Luffy said:


> yes , sakas were iranian people.



One more thing. Are they pure blood Iranians or a mixed race? I mean about the present day Pashtuns.


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Dushmann said:


> One more thing. Are they pure blood Iranians or a mixed race? I mean about the present day Pashtuns.



Iranian or more precisely indo-iranians is a broad linguistic group in which various ethnicities are included e.g iranis, pakhtuns, kurds, ossestiations, baloch etc. Here irani nationals are not some kind of standards and rest of indo-iranians are to be compared. If you ask me about purity of pashtuns then i dont know how to measure racial purity... There are certain groups which are considered mixed which resulted from admixtures of various groups e.g punjabis and hindkowans or urdu speakers are admixtures of various ethnicities and castes...but pashtuns are like one big family, all of the tribes are related to each other...we pashtuns also have arabs, gujjars, shiekhs etc among us but they are not considered "true pashtuns"...so i guess we are only group in the region which has maintained such distinct tribal lineage...more like arabs...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Monkey D Luffy said:


> Iranian or more precisely indo-iranians is a broad linguistic group in which various ethnicities are included e.g iranis, pakhtuns, kurds, ossestiations, baloch etc. Here irani nationals are not some kind of standards and rest of indo-iranians are to be compared. If you ask me about purity of pashtuns then i dont know how to measure racial purity... There are certain groups which are considered mixed which resulted from admixtures of various groups e.g punjabis and hindkowans or urdu speakers are admixtures of various ethnicities and castes...but pashtuns are like one big family, all of the tribes are related to each other...we pashtuns also have arabs, gujjars, shiekhs etc among us but they are not considered "true pashtuns"...so i guess we are only group in the region which has maintained such distinct tribal lineage...more like arabs...



Kurds and baluch are not "iranic" people per say...! Also punjabi is not a race or ethnicity its more of a culture... Punjab itself has various races or ethnic groups.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThunderCat

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them.



And yet claiming they are the fore-bearers of most IE nations today? The fore-bearers of Indo-European tribes/subraces were the *Proto-Indo-Europeans* 

Scythians were merely one of many Indo-European ethnic groups. They lived on the Ukrainian steppes in the west and the Altai mountains in the East. Heck no did not live in Ireland or Scandinavia. You seem to be confusing them with Vikings, Proto-Celts and other Indo-European ethnic groups. The *Proto-Indo-Europeans* lived around the Black Sea basin, until they spread leaving descendents behind such as the Celts, Illyrians, Germanics, Slvas, Batls, Iranics (which Scythians belong to), Indo-Aryans (which Punjabis, Sindhis etc. belong to). 

Indeed the languages spoken today such as English, Urdu, Punjabi are all derived from the Proto-Indo-European language (known as PIE for short) span from Iceland to the bay of Bengal and later on the Americas and the pacific (Australia, new Zealand etc.). Scythians were merely a part of the Indo-European family, nothing more. Scythian was an Iranic language.


----------



## ThunderCat

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Kurds and baluch are not "iranic" people per say...! Also punjabi is not a race or ethnicity its more of a culture... Punjab itself has various races or ethnic groups.



Of course they are Iranic? What do you mean they aren't? If you mean the brahuis who are assimilated into Baloch culture and language, those aren't Iranic, but the ethnic Baloch and Kurds are definitely Iranic, of the northwestern branch


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ThunderCat said:


> Of course they are Iranic? What do you mean they aren't? If you mean the brahuis who are assimilated into Baloch culture and language, those aren't Iranic, but the ethnic Baloch and Kurds are definitely Iranic, of the northwestern branch



We baluch have arabic roots not persian... google it.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Scythian is a general term applied to nomads living on the northern shores of Black Sea. Herodotus spoke in his 4. Book about Scythians detailed. Scythians used to communicate eachother using seven (7) different translators.

If you are searching for ancient Pashtuns, search for Massagetae. They are the ones close to Afghanistan.


----------



## Surenas

The real descendants of those ancient warriors are the Ossetians, another Iranian people.

Ð&#353;Ã¦Ð´ Ð´Ã¦Ñ&#8230;Ð¸ Ñ&#8230;Ð¾Ð½Ñ&#8249;Ñ Ð¸Ñ&#8364;Ð¾Ð½, Ñ&#402;Ã¦Ð´ Ð´Ã¦ Ð¼Ð°Ð´Ã¦Ð»Ð¾Ð½ Ã¦Ð²Ð·Ð°Ð³ Ð·Ð¾Ð½ - YouTube

They still speak an Iranian language. ^


----------



## ThunderCat

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> We baluch have arabic roots not persian... google it.



Where and when did i claim Baloch have persian roots? Do you know what the term iranic means? Let me explain. It's a term for ethnic groups closely related. Persians are just one of many Iranic peoples others include Pashtuns, Kurds etc. It also refers to the Iranic language family of which Baloch is a member of. Other Iranic languages include Farsi, Tajik, ossetian, Kurdish, Pashto. You should at least know what you're writing about. The theory of Baloch being Arabs was there. That Baloch were Arabs but switched to an Iranic language, however genetics doesn't support that theory.


----------



## Surenas

ThunderCat said:


> Where and when did i claim Baloch have persian roots? Do you know what the term iranic means? Let me explain. It's a term for ethnic groups closely related. Persians are just one of many Iranic peoples others include Pashtuns, Kurds etc. It also refers to the Iranic language family of which Baloch is a member of. Other Iranic languages include Farsi, Tajik, ossetian, Kurdish, Pashto. You should at least know what you're writing about. The theory of Baloch being Arabs was there. That Baloch were Arabs but switched to an Iranic language, however genetics doesn't support that theory.



Correct. Genetically, Balochis aren't Arabs or Semitic. Although if I'm right, Balochis cluster more with Pakistanis than with Iranians.


----------



## ThunderCat

Surenas said:


> The real descendants of those ancient warriors are the Ossetians, another Iranian people.
> They still speak an Iranian language. ^



That's a strong theory but unlikely. Ossestians are most likely indigenous Caucasian people like the Circassians, Chechens, Georgians etc. but switched to an Iranic language. Like the Azeris, they are mostly Turkic by language, but not racially of Turko-Mongol descent, they are native Caucasians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Surenas said:


> The real descendants of those ancient warriors are the Ossetians, another Iranian people.
> 
> Ð&#353;Ã¦Ð´ Ð´Ã¦Ñ&#8230;Ð¸ Ñ&#8230;Ð¾Ð½Ñ&#8249;Ñ Ð¸Ñ&#8364;Ð¾Ð½, Ñ&#402;Ã¦Ð´ Ð´Ã¦ Ð¼Ð°Ð´Ã¦Ð»Ð¾Ð½ Ã¦Ð²Ð·Ð°Ð³ Ð·Ð¾Ð½ - YouTube
> 
> They still speak an Iranian language. ^



Question 1) what makes them Iranian? Did they emigrate from Iran to Russian steppes? 
Question 2) which language did they speak? And what proof can you bring?
Question 3) if Scythians were a single clan, who are the ancestors of Finno-Ugric people living in And around Ural Mountains?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

ThunderCat said:


> That's a strong theory but unlikely. Ossestians are most likely indigenous Caucasian people like the Circassians, Chechens, Georgians etc. but switched to an Iranic language. Like the Azeris, they are mostly Turkic by language, but not racially of Turko-Mongol descent, they are native Caucasians.



Not correct. Genetic tests shows:



> The Ossetians are a unique ethnic group of the Caucasus, being the only people found on both the north and south slopes of the mountain, also speaking an Indo-European language surrounded by Caucasian ethnolinguistic groups. The Y-haplogroup data indicate that North Ossetians are more similar to other North Caucasian groups, and South Ossetians are more similar to other South Caucasian groups, than to each other. *Also, with respect to mtDNA, Ossetians are significantly more similar to Iranian groups than to Caucasian groups. It is thus suggested that that there is a common origin of Ossetians from Iran, followed by subsequent male-mediated migrations from their Caucasian neighbours.*



Ossetians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shahin Vatani

ThunderCat said:


> That's a strong theory but unlikely. Ossestians are most likely indigenous Caucasian people like the Circassians, Chechens, Georgians etc. but switched to an Iranic language. Like the Azeris, they are mostly Turkic by language, but not racially of Turko-Mongol descent, they are native Caucasians.



Most of caucasus and central Asia used to be Iranic. Ossetians are a remnant of the previously Iranic Caucasus. They have always been Iranic and are descendants of the Alans.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Question 1) what makes them Iranian? Did they emigrate from Iran to Russian steppes?



Language, culture and genetics. And second question: yes. 



> Question 2) which language did they speak? And what proof can you bring?



They spoke Scythian, and now Ossetian, which they call 'Iron'. Eastern Iranian people (like Pashtuns) pronounce the 'A' as 'O', so 'Iron' actually means 'Iran'. 



> Question 3) if Scythians were a single clan, who are the ancestors of Finno-Ugric people living in And around Ural Mountains?



The Scythians weren't a single clan, just like the Persians weren't.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Surenas said:


> Language, culture and genetics. And second question: yes.
> 
> They spoke Scythian, and now Ossetian, which they call 'Iron'. Eastern Iranian people (like Pashtuns) pronounce the 'A' as 'O', so 'Iron' actually means 'Iran'.
> 
> The Scythians weren't a single clan, just like the Persians weren't.



We dont know the language they spoke. Just as before I told. Scythians had 7 different languages according to Herodotus. Therefore There is No such thing as Scythian language. 

Ossetians are just one single clan, where do you put indigenous clans such as proto-Slavs, Chechens, Avars and Magyars, and other Uralic people living around Desht-i Qypchak?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

And Ossetians still see themselves as Iranians. 



> Mark: Hi, Where and what is Ossetia if I may ask?
> 
> Lesya: Ossetians are a group of ancient Indo-European people related to Iranians actually, however, most of us are Christian and European lifestyle but live in caucuses traditions. We live in the Northern Caucasus mountains which was close to the original Indo-European homeland. That is the group of people from Ireland to India belong. So we I guess like to pride ourselves that we are the primordial archaeal types of the of western culture. OK maybe I am exaggerating a bit. But I love my culture.



What do women want &#8211; Ossetian girl


----------



## Shahin Vatani

Alienoz_TR said:


> Scythians had 7 different languages according to Herodotus.





> The Scythian languages (pron.: /&#712;s&#618;&#952;i&#601;n/ or /&#712;s&#618;ði&#601;n/) are the *Eastern Iranian languages* of the classical and late antiquity period, spoken in a vast region of Eurasia named Scythia. The Scythian languages belong to the Indo-*Iranian branch* of the Indo-European language family.



Scythian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> We dont know the language they spoke.



Yes, we know. Ancient Scythian names shows close affinity with Ossetian names. And Ossetian language is still part of the Iranian people.



> Just as before I told. Scythians had 7 different languages according to Herodotus. Therefore There is No such thing as Scythian language.



Iranian language has dozens of sub-languages too. Doesn't mean that there is no Iranian language, because there is.



> Ossetians are just one single clan



They are descendants of ancient Sarmatians/Scythians. Most experts agree with that.


----------



## ThunderCat

Surenas said:


> Not correct. Genetic tests shows:
> 
> 
> 
> Ossetians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So they are a mix of indigenous Caucasians from their Y-chromosome and mtDNA from Iranic invaders or migrants. It's interesting though that the native men mixed with the migrating women, usually the invading tribe takes the native women and breeds with them. Thanks for sharing.



Surenas said:


> Iranian language has dozens of sub-languages too. Doesn't mean that there is no Iranian language, because there is.



Iranic is not a single language, but a family of languages. They descend from a common language called Proto-Iranic which is now extinct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

ThunderCat said:


> So they are a mix of indigenous Caucasians from their Y-chromosome and mtDNA from Iranic invaders or migrants. Ir's interesting though that the native men mixed with the migrating women, usually the invading tribe takes the native women and breeds with them. Thanks for sharing.



Correct, but the interesting (remarkable) thing about eastern Iranian people was the role of women in their societies. For instance, we know that ancient Sarmatians and Massagetae had women fighters, and women were allowed to have multiple spouses or sexual partners, but the man only one. The name was also given by the mother, unlike a patrilineal society where the name of the father is passed to son and daughter. Iranian people also had famous Iranian female commanders, like Tomyris and Artemisia. 

You can even see that today, were Iranian females are quite independent and combative. You can see that also with Kurds, another Iranian people, where you often see women fighters. Unfortunately, the influence of foreign religions (Semitic) also destroyed this tradition, but its still there.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Shahin Vatani said:


> Scythian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Check Herodotus. Book 4 chapter 20 to 30 (?) forgot the exact chapter number. 

Swedes also speak an Indo European language. That doesnt make them Iranian, right? Language does not make two genetically different people one nation. Indian-European road did culturally and linguistically shaped the people in and around the European Indian trade routes. But white skinned Blond Europeans and dark skinned Indo-Iranians are not single entity. 

Ossetians are one of the many clans which inhabited Eurasian steppes.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Swedes also speak an Indo European language. That doesnt make them Iranian, right?



Swedes speak Indo-European, but not an Iranian language. Ossetians do. 



> Language does not make two genetically different people one nation.



Ossetians cluster with Iranians, and Ossetians are descendants of the Scythians. Simple, not?



> But white skinned Blond Europeans and dark skinned Indo-Iranians are not single entity.



Who said that? And you have enough variety in skin color among Iranians. Iranians are European/Caucasian based on skull structure and other physical traits. Skin color doesn't say a sh!t.



> The Irano-Afghan race was a term used in scientific racism for the populations native to the Iranian plateau. *The Irano-Afghan type was classified as belonging to the greater Caucasian race, and was variously associated with either the Nordic or the Mediterranean subtypes, depending on the authority consulted.*
> 
> Carleton S. Coon in his The Races of Europe classifies the Indo-Afghans and Irano-Afghans as Nordic, describing them as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked. Bertil Lundman by contrast postulates an "Iranid" subtype of his "Eastern Mediterranean" race. Earnest Hooton in 1946 describes the "Iranian Plateau type" as distinct from the Atlanto-Mediterranean one:



Irano-Afghan race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Ossetians are one of the many clans which inhabited Eurasian steppes.



Iranian clan, indeed.


----------



## Shahin Vatani

Alienoz_TR said:


> Check Herodotus. Book 4 chapter 20 to 30 (?) forgot the exact chapter number.
> 
> Swedes also speak an Indo European language. That doesnt make them Iranian, right? Language does not make two genetically different people one nation. Indian-European road did culturally and linguistically shaped the people in and around the European Indian trade routes. But white skinned Blond Europeans and dark skinned Indo-Iranians are not single entity.
> 
> Ossetians are one of the many clans which inhabited Eurasian steppes.



Herodotus is the same clown that said 2.6 Million Iranians got defeated by 5000 Greeks in a battle. So I don't take his opinions very seriously. Also the source I gave mentioned clearly they are Iranians, as I originally highlighted, not merely Indo-Europeans.

Now we are on subject of single entity, it could also be said that Central Asian Turks with Epicanthic fold and dark skinned Anatolian Turks are not the same entity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Scythians are the name of people dwelling around northern shores of Black Sea. Nomad in culture. Ethnically not homogenous. Check also Hippokrates' "of air water And places". Uneducated Medieval Greeks also did call Cumans "Scythians"

Bible also mentions Scythians and Sarmatians. Forgot which chapter. By the time of Jesus, Scythians faded into history under the pressure of Goths, Slavs and Uralo-Altaic expansions.



Shahin Vatani said:


> Herodotus is the same clown that said 2.6 Million Iranians got defeated by 5000 Greeks in a battle. So I don't take his opinions very seriously. Also the source I gave mentioned clearly they are Iranians, as I originally highlighted, not merely Indo-Europeans.
> 
> Now we are on subject of single entity, it could also be said that Central Asian Turks with Epicanthic fold and dark skinned Anatolian Turks are not the same entity.



Herodotus gives higher figure for Greeks. More than 5.000. First read it.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Scythians are the name of people dwelling around northern shores of Black Sea. Nomad in culture. Ethnically not homogenous. Check also Hippokrates' "of air water And places". Uneducated Medieval Greeks also did call Cumans "Scythians''



Scythians were clustered by common culture, tradition, language (family branch), etc. They were Iranian (ancestry), and most experts and historians agree with this notion. The rest is not important.


----------



## Shahin Vatani

Alienoz_TR said:


> Herodotus gives higher figure for Greeks. More than 5.000. First read it.



What, 6000? 7000? Still clownish.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Surenas said:


> Scythians were clustered by common culture, tradition, language (family branch), etc. They were Iranian (ancestry), and most experts and historians agree with this notion. The rest is not important.



I want a quote from Grekov. He is the expert on this issue, not surenas. 



Shahin Vatani said:


> What, 6000? 7000? Still clownish.



60.000 or 70.000.

Book 9 chapter 30: Greek army 108.200


----------



## Surenas

Variety among Iranians:

Iranid:










Robust Iranid:









Iranian Nordoid:









Besides the variety in skin color, many of them belong to the Mediterranean/Nordic race.



Alienoz_TR said:


> I want a quote from Grekov. He is the expert on this issue, not surenas.



Most experts agree with me.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Bring me the phenotypes of Scythians.  

See you later, Mr. Expert.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Bring me the phenotypes of Scythians.









> She looks if anything more like a North Iranid + cromagnoid/ Iranid + Nordoid and cromagnoid admixture.



Sarmatians:


----------



## ThunderCat

Surenas said:


> Correct, but the interesting (remarkable) thing about eastern Iranian people was the role of women in their societies. For instance, we know that ancient Sarmatians and Massagetae had women fighters, and women were allowed to have multiple spouses or sexual partners, but the man only one. The name was also given by the mother, unlike a patrilineal society where the name of the father is passed to son and daughter. Iranian people also had famous Iranian female commanders, like Tomyris and Artemisia.
> 
> You can even see that today, were Iranian females are quite independent and combative. You can see that also with Kurds, another Iranian people, where you often see women fighters. Unfortunately, the influence of foreign religions (Semitic) also destroyed this tradition, but its still there.



Yes that's true and indeed unfortunate. Instead of only Islam coming out of the Arab world to non-Arabs, much of Arabic customs and culture also spread, not to mention language. Such as the backward custom of marrying first cousins, something the Arabs were forced into due to their small population. But instead many non-Arab Muslims interpreted as a religious one.



Shahin Vatani said:


> Herodotus is the same clown that said 2.6 Million Iranians got defeated by 5000 Greeks in a battle. So I don't take his opinions very seriously. Also the source I gave mentioned clearly they are Iranians, as I originally highlighted, not merely Indo-Europeans.
> 
> Now we are on subject of single entity, it could also be said that Central Asian Turks with Epicanthic fold and dark skinned Anatolian Turks are not the same entity.



Herodotus is one of the earliest recorded and respected anthropologists in history. probably 5000 Greeks fought against a smaller army of Persians. Modern Iran at the time had 2.6 million but I doubt all of them would leave their homeland to fight greeks, only a few thousand of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ThunderCat

Alienoz_TR said:


> Check Herodotus. Book 4 chapter 20 to 30 (?) forgot the exact chapter number.
> 
> Swedes also speak an Indo European language. That doesnt make them Iranian, right? Language does not make two genetically different people one nation. Indian-European road did culturally and linguistically shaped the people in and around the European Indian trade routes. But white skinned Blond Europeans and dark skinned Indo-Iranians are not single entity.
> 
> Ossetians are one of the many clans which inhabited Eurasian steppes.



I think you are complaining about the terminology. i agree terminology is not always appropriate. Like the term "Indo-European" for the prehistoric people who liked in Eurasia. I personally think "Indo-European" languages should have been called Eurasian languages, after all their origin point is in Eurasia. Just like I think Urdu should have been called a Vedic language instead of Indo-Aryan since Urdu and it's sister language descend from Vedic Sanskrit. 

But problem is it's in mainstream use so we have to go by them unless in the future these misleading terms can be changed.


----------



## Surenas

ThunderCat said:


> Yes that's true and indeed unfortunate. Instead of only Islam coming out of the Arab world to non-Arabs, much of Arabic customs and culture also spread, not to mention language. Such as the backward custom of marrying first cousins, something the Arabs were forced into due to their small population. But instead many non-Arab Muslims interpreted as a religious one.



Correct, but besides traditional Arab culture, its also correlated to Semitic religions like Judiasm, Islam and Christianity. If you look closely, you can see that Semites (society) were traditionally much more male-dominated, conservative and paternal. Unlike Iranian culture, where women had many rights and prominent role in the society. Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were eventually Islamized, and that was the end of women influence in societies. If you read Greek history or Alexander's adventure in M-E and Asia; they encountered female fighters in Afghanistan/Pakistan area and he eventually even married a Bactrian princes. 

In Afghanistan and Pakistan it has really deteriorated, the role of women in society, but Iran still managed (partially) to keep its ancient culture. In Iran, the role of women is extremely increasing, and thats a good development. Watch Iranian protests in 2009, and Arab protests now. Iranian women were much more involved in those protests, while Arab women were raped on Tahrir square, and didn't had that much influence on those protests.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shahin Vatani

ThunderCat said:


> Herodotus is one of the earliest recorded and respected anthropologists in history. probably 5000 Greeks fought against a smaller army of Persians. Modern Iran at the time had 2.6 million but I doubt all of them would leave their homeland to fight greeks, only a few thousand of them.



It's not important what you believe. What is important is that Herodotus stated that 2.6 million Persians fought in battle and where defeated by 5000 Greeks. Look up Herodotus' account of the Battle of Thermopylae.


----------



## ThunderCat

Shahin Vatani said:


> It's not important what you believe. What is important is that Herodotus stated that 2.6 million Persians fought in battle and where defeated by 5000 Greeks. Look up Herodotus' account of the Battle of Thermopylae.



I seriously doubt he wrote that. I'd like to first know what the population of modern Iran was at that time. You probably got it from a wrong source or misinterpretation. Like most info we have today on the Scythians are from Herodotus


----------



## Shahin Vatani

ThunderCat said:


> I seriously doubt he wrote that. I'd like to first know what the population of modern Iran was at that time. You probably got it from a wrong source or misinterpretation. Like most info we have today on the Scythians are from Herodotus



I didn't take it from a source, I took it from his actual book. Here is the exact page:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+7.186

From Herodotus's "Histories" he claims that 2.6 million armed soldiers where joined by 2.6 million support personnel totalling 5.2 million Persians who travelled to Greece for battle.


----------



## ThunderCat

Surenas said:


> Correct, but besides traditional Arab culture, its also correlated to Semitic religions like Judiasm, Islam and Christianity. If you look closely, you can see that Semites (society) were traditionally much more male-dominated, conservative and paternal. Unlike Iranian culture, where women had many rights and prominent role in the society. Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were eventually Islamized, and that was the end of women influence in societies. If you read Greek history or Alexander's adventure in M-E and Asia; they encountered female fighters in Afghanistan/Pakistan area and he eventually even married a Bactrian princes.
> 
> In Afghanistan and Pakistan it has really deteriorated, the role of women in society, but Iran still managed (partially) to keep its ancient culture. In Iran, the role of women is extremely increasing, and thats a good development. Watch Iranian protests in 2009, and Arab protests now. Iranian women were much more involved in those protests, while Arab women were raped on Tahrir square, and didn't had that much influence on those protests.



Thing is most of modern Iran's ancient culture is recorded even if not in practice. Pakistan's prehistoric cultures died out even before Islam came, so learning what it exactly was would be even harder. The only thing left of our ancient heritage are some cultural arts and traditions but the strongest link to our ancient Aryan psst would be in the *Kalash* people of the north who are also facing the threat of extinction thanks to Islamic extremism which is why I worry about them.

If they go, all knowledge to our past goes. There is however a strong interest amongst Pakistanis growing of our prehistoric past due to the age of the Internet, so I wouldn't loose all hope.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThunderCat

Shahin Vatani said:


> I didn't take it from a source, I took it from his actual book. Here is the exact page:
> 
> Herodotus, The Histories, Book 7, chapter 186
> 
> From Herodotus's "Histories" he claims that 2.6 million armed soldiers where joined by 2.6 million support personnel totalling 5.2 million Persians who travelled to Greece for battle.



1) I'd question the poor translation " This then is the number of soldiers. As for the *service-train* which followed them and the crews of the light corn-bearing vessels and all the other vessels besides which came by sea with the force, these I believe to have been not fewer but more than the fighting men. [2] Suppose, however, that they were equal in number, neither more nor fewer. If they were equal to the fighting contingent, they made up as many tens of thousands as the others. The number, then, of those whom Xerxes son of Darius led as far as the Sepiad headland and Thermopylae was five million, two hundred and eighty-three thousand, two hundred and twenty. "

2) If a country like Finland with a population of only 3.5 million can defeat the mighty Soviet military in World War 1 (with a little external help) , why couldn't the Greeks defeat the Persians in their own terrain? 

3) Are you going to discount everything else Herodotus stated because you wish to believe he might be wrong about the Persian army numbers?


----------



## Shahin Vatani

ThunderCat said:


> 1) I'd question the poor translation " This then is the number of soldiers. As for the *service-train* which followed them and the crews of the light corn-bearing vessels and all the other vessels besides which came by sea with the force, these I believe to have been not fewer but more than the fighting men. [2] Suppose, however, that they were equal in number, neither more nor fewer. If they were equal to the fighting contingent, they made up as many tens of thousands as the others. The number, then, of those whom Xerxes son of Darius led as far as the Sepiad headland and Thermopylae was five million, two hundred and eighty-three thousand, two hundred and twenty. "
> 
> 2) If a country like Finland with a population of only 3.5 million can defeat the mighty Soviet military in World War 1 (with a little external help) , why couldn't the Greeks defeat the Persians in their own terrain?
> 
> 3) Are you going to discount everything else Herodotus stated because you wish to believe he might be wrong about the Persian army numbers?



1. It is a highly respected translation by A.D. Godley who was public orator at the University of Oxford. This edition was also published by Harvard University Press.

2. Once again you are confusing population with army size. Herodotus said Persia sent 5.2 million men (half of them soldiers) to Greece and they got defeated by 5000 men. Anybody with any semblance of reality would find this highly preposterous and laughable.

3. It tells a story of how horribly wrong Herodotus's evidence could be. He has been wrong many other times as well, so it is not a one off. He was a revolutionary historian for his time and day, but relying on Herodotus in the 21st century as the sole proprietor of truth on a matter is not wise. At most his accounts should be cross examined with other accounts and historic evidences, which is what most modern historians do.


----------



## Ethiopian Dude

scythians were nomadic savages who practised canabalism according to many greek sources....the bible groups them under extreem barbarians. They are the ancestors of the english scottish, irish,german and dutch race.they use to live in central asia before they migrated to europe when the roman empire was in decline.These people were known as sakas in india they use to plunder the northern part of india in ancient times they were also slaves of the indians for many centuries when the indian empire dominated central asia under the kushans......thats one of the main reasons western europeans and particularly the british always insult indians in the media and movies covertly......... they know the real history of their origins..........europeans are desendents of indian albinos...... they are scared to death of the world finding out their real origin and why they became white(albino).


----------



## Mard

hi guys, I have a question, why do indian Gujjars, Rajputs and even Jats to an extent look different from the pakistani ones? It seems Indians ones are clearly much more mixed with local Indian blood. For example I knew several Gujjar families from northern Punjab in Pakistan and many of them resembled Pashtuns and even Kalash, like they had very fair skin and also had colored hair brownish/reddish, but when I met an Indian Gujjar from Indian state of Gujarat in India, he was almost as Dark as a Tamil person. My question is, are these people even considered one group of people? just because they are Gujjars, Jats, Rajputs, are they even same people now?


----------



## Ethiopian Dude

i cant post images for some reason


----------



## ThunderCat

Ethiopian Dude said:


> scythians were nomadic savages who practised canabalism according to many greek sources....the bible groups them under extreem barbarians. They are the ancestors of the english scottish, irish,german and dutch race.they use to live in central asia before they migrated to europe when the roman empire was in decline.These people were known as sakas in india they use to plunder the northern part of india in ancient times they were also slaves of the indians for many centuries when the indian empire dominated central asia under the kushans......thats one of the main reasons western europeans and particularly the british always insult indians in the media and movies covertly......... they know the real history of their origins..........europeans are desendents of indian albinos...... they are scared to death of the world finding out their real origin and why they became white(albino).



Again you are confusing them with Vikings, Celts and others. Scythians were NOT Vikings, Illyrians, Tocharians, Samartians, Persians, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs etc. Europeans are not descended from "indian albinos" where do you read such nonsense? Most modern Europeans are from Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Illyrian, Anatolian and Celtic tribes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Surenas

ThunderCat said:


> Again you are confusing them with Vikings, Celts and others. Scythians were NOT Samartians



You mean Sarmatians or Samaritians?


----------



## ThunderCat

Surenas said:


> You mean Sarmatians or Samaritians?



Samaritans. spelling


----------



## Ethiopian Dude

ThunderCat said:


> Again you are confusing them with Vikings, Celts and others. Scythians were NOT Vikings, Illyrians, Tocharians, Samartians, Persians, Anglo-Saxons, Slavs etc. Europeans are not descended from "indian albinos" where do you read such nonsense? Most modern Europeans are from Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Illyrian, Anatolian and Celtic tribes.





dude modern europeans are not indigenious to europe.......... their original homeland is in central asia. they invaded europe the first were the latins and the dorians who invaded southern europe... scythians were the last to leave their central asian homeland and move in to europe. Europeans are desended form indian albinos... i figured this out after seeing an albino indian dude who i mistook for a northern european...this is the hidden history which europeans will never admit. i tried posting pictures but i couldnt for some reason... i'll try again.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ThunderCat said:


> I think you are complaining about the terminology. i agree terminology is not always appropriate. Like the term "Indo-European" for the prehistoric people who liked in Eurasia. I personally think "Indo-European" languages should have been called Eurasian languages, after all their origin point is in Eurasia. Just like I think Urdu should have been called a Vedic language instead of Indo-Aryan since Urdu and it's sister language descend from Vedic Sanskrit.
> 
> But problem is it's in mainstream use so we have to go by them unless in the future these misleading terms can be changed.



Indo-European origins of Scythians can only be partially True. If someone decides Scythians are Iranians, then Circassians, Chechens, Magyars, Slavs become non-indigenous to Eurasian steppes.

One also forget that first inhabitants of Eurasian Steppes are Cimmerians. Who were Cimmerians?

Ethnic classification of pre-Jesus era nations are almost impossible because of poor documentation.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Mard said:


> hi guys, I have a question, why do indian Gujjars, Rajputs and even Jats to an extent look different from the pakistani ones? It seems Indians ones are clearly much more mixed with local Indian blood. For example I knew several Gujjar families from northern Punjab in Pakistan and many of them resembled Pashtuns and even Kalash, like they had very fair skin and also had colored hair brownish/reddish, but when I met an Indian Gujjar from Indian state of Gujarat in India, he was almost as Dark as a Tamil person. My question is, are these people even considered one group of people? just because they are Gujjars, Jats, Rajputs, are they even same people now?



Northern People had lighter skin and light colored eyes. Throughout the history people did immigration. When northerners and southerners met somewhere, genetic exchange happens. Which can be applied to your post.

Language, genetics and cultures are 3 different things. Almost all time people mix these things, and become confused.

500 years ago, America was home to redskinned American natives who spoke Aztec, Cherokee, Incan. Nowadays Whites, Blacks and Mestizos live in America speaking English, Spanish and French.


----------



## farooqalvi

New Thread: India is the ancient name of Pakistan
All ancient literatures point towards this fact. For example, the Holy Avesta (c. 600 BC) of Zoroastrianism, Admiral Scylaxs account of India (517-509 BC), father of Geography Hecataeuss Periodos Ges (505 BX), Historie of father of History Herodotus (c. 440 BC), Indica of Royal Physician Ctesias (415-398 BC), Syriac, Greek, Latin literature of early Christianity, etc etc all confine India of their times to the territories of present-day Pakistan, not mentioning any other part of the Subcontinent. They even give its boundaries: Iran to its west, Erythraean (Arabian) Sea to its south, great desert to its east and Hindukush Range beyond (to its north). Etymology also supports this. Farooq Alvi


----------



## haviZsultan

Prince Anacharsis was one of the greatest figures produced by the Scythian kingdom.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> Indo-European origins of Scythians can only be partially True



Their Iranian origins is documented, acknowledged by most experts and proved by the still Iranian origins by their only real descendants, the Ossetians.



> One also forget that first inhabitants of Eurasian Steppes are Cimmerians. Who were Cimmerians?



They were Indo-European too, and probably had a Iranian elite. Iranians ruled the whole steppe once.

Cimmerians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ShahidT

never have i seen so much bogus conjecture in one thread. atleast within pakistan you should be clear that within the mainland there are two broad ethno-linguistic categories of people, barring exceptions I'll detail later. Iranid and Norindid peoples, with Baloch (relatively recent migrants from approx. 1,000 years ago that came from northwestern Iran/present day eastern Syria according to their own carried down traditions) and Pashtuns (older migrants from khorasan/eastern Iran region that came approx. 2,500-3,000 years ago) belonging to the former, and Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris being native to this land since slightly before neolithic times if not earlier, belonging to the latter. 

Now there are exceptions within both of these 'academic' groups. Pashtun areas no doubt have many Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara and Turkic blooded people with more central asian/mongloid admixture, and the brahui of balochistan that predate baloch settlement in this area are said to align linguistically atleast with dravidian populations, with some research proposing their language to have the closest but yet inconclusive links to indus valley scripts. baltis and hindkowans again have central asian admixture but the base of their genetics before slight outside influence was a mixture between indic and dardic similar to some northern punjabis and kashmiris. The kalash are one of the only remnants who have absolutely no genetic, linguistic or cultural link with the surrounding regions. they are thought to possess more mediterranean dna markers, and purportedly are descendants, with relatively unmixed lineage. of greek settlers during alexander's conquests.

so we have, broadly, the indigenous peoples of the indus river and most of its tributaries (except some extending to the west into afghanistan) are the Norindid populations, which have been in the subcontinent for the better part of 40-50,000 years. this can be proven through the genetic studies conducted over the last 150 years, with the more recent ones finding with very low stastistical error there to be genetic continuity and incredibly negligible external influence to this consistent gene pool in the past 35,000 to 40,000 years. i have looked slightly into the scientific basis for this claim through subcontinental and early homo sapien history.

if you look at the most widely accepted theory of modern human migration in anthropology and genetics, you will find the out of africa theory receiving the most support, and being the most plausible and defendable theory we have to date backed up by human fossil discoveries and evidence from genetic markers. this theory proposes that the first anatomically modern humans were to be found in east africa approximately 90-110,000 years ago. contemporaneously or shortly after, these modern humans or homo sapiens became the dominant homonids on this planet and our other ancestors or cousins becoming extinct through modified natural selection. the subsequent migrations out of east africa to the rest of the world happened in waves.

the first wave was north through sudan and egypt into the middle east around 80,000 years ago. this first wave saw settlements across north africa and the levant, whereas those who stayed in east africa began populating central, western and southern africa. over tens of thousands of years these migrants or middle easterners, owing to being further from the equater and in some places colder climates, developed variations in skin tone and features. they began agricultural civilizations along the nile, tigris, euphrates, etc. much later on. these became arabids and iranids, and later on the europids (those that moved further north).

however, a second wave had occurred around 50-60,000 years ago, with those original east africans migrating by water to the southern coast of the subcontinent, and in time these settled populations would become the proto-dravidians and afro-asiatic tribal peoples you find in the andaman islands. around 40,000 years ago, these populations also migrated across water again to populate the continent of australia and became the aboriginals. now, behavioural modernity occured some time between 40-60,000 years ago, with the development of language and relatively sophisticated communication. its not certain where exactly and when this first developed, it could have been in any one of these now-divergent populations.

anyhow, the middle eastern 'migrants' would populate north into europe and east into central asia, laying the foundations for many of the asiatic races who would then go on further to migrate from eastern asia via land bridge through alaska and populate north and south america as the native amerindians approximately 15,000-20,000 years ago. the southern subcontinental migrants or proto-dravidians similarly moved north up to the himalayas and near the river banks of present day indus and brahmaputra. they would become the NorIndids and civilizations flourished independently here, even trading with babylonian civilizations around 3,500-1,800 BC, before an unforeseen (likely) environmental disaster like mass floods spurred their migration back to some of the eastern rivers to further what is now referred to as the Vedic civilization. the links or similarities you find, as well as variations in skin colour are because of the common roots of our east african ancestors. the fascinating thing about the variation and natural selection insights within evolutionary theory is, that this variation can be used to explain more than the survival of species but also the similarities and traceability of cultural, linguistic or other expressions of behavioural modernity amongst various populations in their interactions through relatively recent history in the context of the earth.

so in short, sakas, arabid or iranid influence is incredibly negligibly amongst the native populations in the eastern half of Pakistan. trying to prove one or a few cases in limited studies of central asian/mongloid influence is quite worthless, as considering the larger population (of punjab, sindh, kashmir) as a whole, those 'findings' are very statistically insignificant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Surenas said:


> Their Iranian origins is documented, acknowledged by most experts and proved by the still Iranian origins by their only real descendants, the Ossetians.
> 
> They were Indo-European too, and probably had a Iranian elite. Iranians ruled the whole steppe once.
> 
> Cimmerians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And what about Magyars, Circassians, Slavs, Chechens? Where did they live when Scythians roamed the steppes?There is No documentation about culture of Scythians other than Herodotus, Hippokrates and to smaller extent Thukydides.

Where did they vanish to? Puff, Scythians No more. Indo-European speakers were only part of Scythians, not all. Iranian origin is exaggerated, unless a new documentation predating Herodotus come to light, all theories are just theories. Same thing that Magyars do. Magyars also claim Scythian ancestry.

@pehgaam e mohabbet,

Real Good post.


----------



## ThunderCat

Alienoz_TR said:


> Indo-European origins of Scythians can only be partially True. If someone decides Scythians are Iranians, then Circassians, Chechens, Magyars, Slavs become non-indigenous to Eurasian steppes.
> 
> One also forget that first inhabitants of Eurasian Steppes are Cimmerians. Who were Cimmerians?
> 
> Ethnic classification of pre-Jesus era nations are almost impossible because of poor documentation.



Scythians were not Iranian, but Iranic. Iranians simply refers to people from the modern country Iran. Iranic refers to peoples of a common source and their language family. The proto-Iranic people did not live in Iran but somewhere in central Asia. And also a lot of people from Iran (Iranians) are not Iranic. Like Kyrgyz people are not Turkish but Turkic. Same way Scythians were not Iranian but Iranic.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ThunderCat said:


> Scythians were not Iranian, but Iranic. Iranians simply refers to people from the modern country Iran. Iranic refers to peoples of a common source and their language family. The proto-Iranic people did not live in Iran but somewhere in central Asia. And also a lot of people from Iran (Iranians) are not Iranic. Like Kyrgyz people are not Turkish but Turkic. Same way Scythians were not Iranian but Iranic.



So jatts and rajputs also have scythian blood?


----------



## ThunderCat

Please ignore this Afro/Indo centricist. Don't waste time on people like these. 



Ethiopian Dude said:


> dude modern europeans are not indigenious to europe.......... their original homeland is in central asia. they invaded europe the first were the latins and the dorians who invaded southern europe... scythians were the last to leave their central asian homeland and move in to europe. Europeans are desended form indian albinos... *i figured this out after seeing an albino indian dude who i mistook for a northern european*...this is the hidden history which europeans will never admit. i tried posting pictures but i couldnt for some reason... i'll try again.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ThunderCat said:


> Scythians were not Iranian, but Iranic. Iranians simply refers to people from the modern country Iran. Iranic refers to peoples of a common source and their language family. The proto-Iranic people did not live in Iran but somewhere in central Asia. And also a lot of people from Iran (Iranians) are not Iranic. Like Kyrgyz people are not Turkish but Turkic. Same way Scythians were not Iranian but Iranic.



1) Were Persians and Scythians same people? If so, Why did Herodotus say: Scythians had 7 different languages, and No mentions about Persian language?! Check Herodotus, Histories, book 4.

2) i am still waiting for a response about the ancestors of Magyars, Slavs, Circassians, Chechens and others etc...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ethiopian Dude

ThunderCat said:


> Please ignore this Afro/Indo centricist. Don't waste time on people like these.[/QU
> 
> Albino indians look exactly like northern nordic europeans( straight blonde or red hair...blue, green eyes etc) thats a fact. neither african albinos nor asian albinos can ever pass for white northern europeans although they have depigmented skin and colored eyes they dont have caucasian bone structures and caucasian hair in the case of the african albinos.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Ethiopian Dude said:


> Albino indians look exactly like northern nordic europeans( straight blonde or red hair...blue, green eyes etc) thats a fact. neither african albinos nor asian albinos can ever pass for white northern europeans although they have depigmented skin and colored eyes they dont have caucasian bone structures and caucasian hair in the case of the african albinos.



A Blond European and A Brown skinned Indian belong to same language family because of cultural exchange. Albinoism is a sickness, but being white is not.


----------



## Surenas

- dubbel...


----------



## Surenas

Ethiopian Dude said:


> ThunderCat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please ignore this Afro/Indo centricist. Don't waste time on people like these.[/QU
> 
> Albino indians look exactly like northern nordic europeans( straight blonde or red hair...blue, green eyes etc) thats a fact. neither african albinos nor asian albinos can ever pass for white northern europeans although they have depigmented skin and colored eyes they dont have caucasian bone structures and caucasian hair in the case of the african albinos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullsh!t. Indians have a much different skull structure than Nordics Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> Alienoz_TR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Were Persians and Scythians same people? If so, Why did Herodotus say: Scythians had 7 different languages, and No mentions about Persian language?! Check Herodotus, Histories, book 4./
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Persians and Scythians were both Iranian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) i am still waiting for a response about the ancestors of Magyars, Slavs, Circassians, Chechens and others etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gives a damn?
Click to expand...


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Surenas said:


> Persians and Scythians were both Iranian.
> 
> Who gives a damn?



While Descendants of Magyars, Slavs, Chechens and Circassians roam the steppes in 2013, there are No Iranians on the Eurasian steppes. Guess why? 

What happened to them, can you clarify this question as well? Your response would probably be: Bad Turks massacred "Iranic Scythians" or Iranic Bulgars still live there. 

History is a social science, therefore results are subjective and may vary according to the individual tendencies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThunderCat

Alienoz_TR said:


> 1) Were Persians and Scythians same people? If so, Why did Herodotus say: Scythians had 7 different languages, and No mentions about Persian language?! Check Herodotus, Histories, book 4.
> 
> 2) i am still waiting for a response about the ancestors of Magyars, Slavs, Circassians, Chechens and others etc...



1) Persians and Scythians were not the same people, but related peoples with a common origin, both of them being Iranic.

2) Magyar/Hungarians are a central European people with some Finno-Ugric roots, but very little. Their DNA is mostly the same as other central Europeans. Slavs are a a group of ethnic groups who are Indo-European. Chechen, Circassians, Georgians, Azeris, Lezghins are mostly indigenous Caucasian populations with some external genetic influence but not by much.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ThunderCat said:


> 1) Persians and Scythians were not the same people, but related peoples with a common origin, both of them being Iranic.
> 
> 2) Magyar/Hungarians are a central European people with some Finno-Ugric roots, but very little. Their DNA is mostly the same as other central Europeans. Slavs are a a group of ethnic groups who are Indo-European. Chechen, Circassians, Georgians, Azeris, Lezghins are mostly indigenous Caucasian populations with some external genetic influence but not by much.



OK, to which race belong Pakistanis? Balouch? Pashtun? Sindi? Punjabi? Neither. Scythians were nomadic tribes who were not homogenous. Pre-Jesus era was same as today where ethnic groups live side by side; but borders were not clear. Therefore you cant bring any evidence on how much Iranic or how much Nordic or how much Uralic or how much Caucasian the Scythians were.

Considering Scythians an Iranic group makes them non-indigenous to Desht-i Qypchak or Eurasian Steppes, native peoples existed before Scythians. Languages dont appear all sudden one day.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> OK, to which race belong Pakistanis? Balouch? Pashtun? Sindi? Punjabi? Neither. Scythians were nomadic tribes who were not homogenous. Pre-Jesus era was same as today where ethnic groups live side by side; but borders were not clear. Therefore you cant bring any evidence on how much Iranic or how much Nordic or how much Uralic or how much Caucasian the Scythians were.
> 
> Considering Scythians an Iranic group makes them non-indigenous to Desht-i Qypchak or Eurasian Steppes, native peoples existed before Scythians. Languages dont appear all sudden one day.



The Central Asian Scythians seem to be Iranic at very beginning, while later it got Turkified.

While the East European Scythians seem to be very Slavic, later many of them have abandoned the nomadic lifestyle, while some others became the Don Cossacks.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Central Asian Scythians seem to be Iranic at very beginning, while later it got Turkified.
> 
> While the East European Scythians seem to be very Slavic, later many of them have abandoned the nomadic lifestyle, while some others became the Don Cossacks.



Herodotus say: Scythians used 7 different translators to communicate various tribes. Source: Herodotus, Book 4, chapter 24. 

Ethnic homogenity was out of place in 600 BC; is still out of place in 2013. Iranic migration to Eurasian steppes could not have changed the entire ethnic structure. If it had, there would not be Circassians, Lezgins, Magyars or Slavs today. Almost all of them would be Ossetians today as Surenas try to prove.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> Herodotus say: Scythians used 7 different translators to communicate various tribes. Source: Herodotus, Book 4, chapter 24.
> 
> Ethnic homogenity was out of place in 600 BC; is still out of place in 2013. Iranic migration to Eurasian steppes could not have changed the entire ethnic structure. If it had, there would not be Circassians, Lezgins, Magyars or Slavs today. Almost all of them would be Ossetians today as Surenas try to prove.



The Ossetians seem to be the native men from Caucasus mixed with the Amazon women.

They have very few R1a which is the standard Scytho-Sarmatian gene marker, while they got the mtDNA from the Scytho-Sarmatian tribes.

And culturally they are also the heirs of the Scytho-Sarmatian heritage.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> And culturally they are also the heirs of the Scytho-Sarmatian heritage.



1) Magyars were also nomadic, but come from a different language family. Culturally they are as much as Scytho-Sarmatian.

2) Amazon women race is a myth. Every nomadic race had woman warriors, from Scythians to Mongols.

3) connecting light skinned Scythians to dark skinned Iranians is a bit exaggeration. I mean No offence to cultural exchange, but making them one race is something like putting Apple and orange into same basket and calling fruit.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> 3) connecting light skinned Scythians to dark skinned Iranians is a bit exaggeration. I mean No offence to cultural exchange, but making them one race is something like putting Apple and orange into same basket and calling fruit.



The general phenotype of the early unmixed Scythians (especially those from East Europe) were predominantly Indo-European Nordic with light complexion, while neither Turks or modern Iranians are close to this type on average.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Alienoz_TR said:


> A Blond European and A Brown skinned Indian belong to same language family because of cultural exchange. Albinoism is a sickness, but being white is not.



Indians are brown because of mixture of different races, it was not cultural exchange.


----------



## BeyondHeretic

Alienoz_TR said:


> 1) Magyars were also nomadic, but come from a different language family. Culturally they are as much as Scytho-Sarmatian.
> 
> 2) Amazon women race is a myth. Every nomadic race had woman warriors, from Scythians to Mongols.
> 
> 3) connecting light skinned Scythians to dark skinned Iranians is a bit exaggeration. I mean No offence to cultural exchange, but making them one race is something like putting Apple and orange into same basket and calling fruit.



I think the world Scythian is hijacked for most part , by western academians , that's why you might have the presumption they were all light skinned , while they were not. Scythians as Wikipedia tries to portrait were all the people who were somewhat influenced by the central Asian saka , the saka were horsemen and they were good archers , the rest of the ancient world must have learnt horsemanship and archery from them either directly or indirectly , imo.

Persians were a vassal of medes and other Mesopotamian civilizations and they were archers but they were foot archers , so you might be right , they could be not much related to scythians.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

Gigawatt said:


> Indians are brown because of mixture of different races, it was not cultural exchange.



Language was brought to nations by cultural exchange. Not by genetic exchange. A Scandinavian and A Indo-Aryan dont share the same ethnic roots.

Try to understand Spanish speaking Mestizos or English speaking American Natives. It was result of European cultural expansion.


----------



## BeyondHeretic

I think the fascination with ancient scythians mainly stems from the fact that they are now extinct , like everyone can go to Italy and see for themselves how romans weren't anything special , but scythians are imo , romanticized by most scholars because of their traits.


----------



## INDIC

Ethiopian Dude said:


> Albino indians look exactly like northern nordic europeans( straight blonde or red hair...blue, green eyes etc) thats a fact. neither african albinos nor asian albinos can ever pass for white northern europeans although they have depigmented skin and colored eyes they dont have caucasian bone structures and caucasian hair in the case of the african albinos.



Your theory is wrong, similarity with Europe is because of the cultural component of Indo-Aryans who mixed with other races in India.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> A Scandinavian and A Indo-Aryan dont share the same ethnic roots.



They may have common root, but they both also got heavily localized.

For example, the Scandinavian is the mixed product of the steppe Proto-Indo-Europeans and the indigenous hunter-gatherer from North Europe, while the Indo-Aryan is the mixture of the Indo-Europeans and the West/South Asian aborigines.

So today's Indo-European is more likely a cultural concept that is widely spread by an ancient group of people AKA the Proto-Indo-Europeans.


----------



## BeyondHeretic

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> They may have common root, but they both also got heavily localized.
> 
> For example, the Scandinavian is the mixed product of the steppe Proto-Indo-Europeans and the indigenous hunter-gatherer from North Europe, while the Indo-Aryan is the mixture of the Indo-Europeans and the West/South Asian aborigines.
> 
> So today's Indo-European is more likely a cultural concept that is widely spread by an ancient group of people AKA the Proto-Indo-Europeans.



That's right , scandenavians are a mix of celtic people and proto-indo-europeans , so if they are blond it's because of celts , if they're smart it's because of central Asians.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

BeyondHeretic said:


> I think the fascination with ancient scythians mainly stems from the fact that they are now extinct , like everyone can go to Italy and see for themselves how romans weren't anything special , but scythians are imo , romanticized by most scholars because of their traits.



Romans did mix with Etruscs. Etruscs were nomadic people originally from East Europe. todays Italians are Mediterannean Nomadic mixture speaking a Indo-European language which is probably originated in Mesopotamia. 

I recently got interest to investigate origins of Etruscs. Maybe somewhat related to Scythians or others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BeyondHeretic

Alienoz_TR said:


> Romans did mix with Etruscs. Etruscs were nomadic people originally from East Europe. todays Italians are Mediterannean Nomadic mixture speaking a Indo-European language which is probably originated in Mesopotamia.
> 
> I recently got interest to investigate origins of Etruscs. Maybe somewhat related to Scythians or others.



I honestly don't know anything about etruscans but saying that the Italian language is Indo-European is like saying Chinese and Japanese are from the same language family...

btw , what are your sources for researching on etruscans?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BeyondHeretic said:


> That's right , scandenavians are a mix of celtic people and proto-indo-europeans , so if they are blond it's because of celts , if they're smart it's because of central Asians.



If the Proto-Indo-Europeans were born on the South Russian steppe, then their complexion must be brown haired or dirty blonde with moderate high frequency of light eyes.

While those aborigines are even blonder than the Proto-Indo-Europeans, when PIE mixed them, it did produce the even blonder Scandivanians.

The modern Scandivanians are even blonder than PIE, but it doesn't mean the ultra platinum blonde Scandivanian is the pure Indo-European by blood.

Even the Uralic people are originally some light depigmented Mongoloids from Siberia/Northeast Europe, that's why many modern Russians are still so blonde despite being heavily mixed with the Uralic people.


----------



## BeyondHeretic

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> If the Proto-Indo-Europeans were born on the South Russian steppe, then their complexion must be brown haired or dirty blonde with moderate high frequency of light eyes.
> 
> While those aborigines are even blonder than the Proto-Indo-Europeans, when PIE mixed them, it did produce the even blonder Scandivanians.
> 
> The modern Scandivanians are even blonder than PIE, but it doesn't the ultra platinum blonde Scandivanian is the pure Indo-European by blood.
> 
> Even the Uralic people are originally some light depigmented Mongoloids from Siberia/Northeast Europe, that's why many modern Russians are still so blonde despite being heavily mixed with the Uralic people.



well I think you pay too much attention to the color of skin, hair and eyes , lots of Chinese people are fair skinned but are they considered white? probably not , what defines a person's race is the shape of their skull like the OP suggests , like many people are slanted eyed but it is only Asians who have that kinda hammered down nose on their face. besides being slanted eyed.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

BeyondHeretic said:


> I honestly don't know anything about etruscans but saying that the Italian language is Indo-European is like saying Chinese and Japanese are from the same language family...
> 
> btw , what are your sources for researching on etruscans?



I recently got interest into it. Not much known by myself. From what I understand ancient languages of Europe such as Etruscan and Basque were replaced by Indo-Aryan language expansion during first millenia B.C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BeyondHeretic

Alienoz_TR said:


> I recently got interest into it. Not much known by myself. From what I understand ancient languages of Europe such as Etruscan and Basque were replaced by Indo-Aryan language expansion during first millenia B.C.



That's interesting , so the Etruscan language was celtic like basque?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BeyondHeretic said:


> well I think you pay too much attention to the color of skin, hair and eyes , lots of Chinese people are fair skinned but are they considered white? probably not , what defines a person's race is the shape of their skull like the OP suggests , like many people are slanted eyed but it is only Asians who have that kinda hammered down nose on their face. besides being slanted eyed.



Honestly i don't care, i prefer our people to stick with what we are now.

But i was trying to discover the root of the Nordicism and White Supremacism.

Do you think a person with blonde hair and blue eyes is still Chinese? We don't like to lose our original traits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BeyondHeretic

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Honestly i don't care, i prefer our people to stick with what we are now.
> 
> But i was trying to discover the root of the Nordicism and White Supremacism.
> 
> *Do you think a person with blonde hair and blue eyes is still Chinese? We don't like to lose our original traits*.



there are mongols with blue eyes and blonde hair so why not?


----------



## Alienoz_TR

BeyondHeretic said:


> That's interesting , so the Etruscan language was celtic like basque?



Nope, Both Etruscan and Basque languages are ancient European language non-related to Indo-European languages. Indo-European languages became dominant under influence of Roman Empire and Catholic Church.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BeyondHeretic said:


> there are mongols with blue eyes and blonde hair so why not?



We are different from them, since those Mongols are nomadic people who like to steal many wives of different race.

While most Chinese prefer to marry with the person of his/her own background.

And the Japanese also love light hair and light eyes because they have suffered some heavily inferiority complex against the West.

While we have 5000 years old of civilization, we are very proud of ourselves, we are not some rootless people without its own civilization, who will also start to worship other people's idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BeyondHeretic

Alienoz_TR said:


> Nope, Both Etruscan and Basque languages are ancient European language non-related to Indo-European languages. Indo-European languages became dominant under influence of Roman Empire and Catholic Church.



I see , cause I thought they were celtic languages , just like how Persians might have been related to scythians but speaking a different language.



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We are different from them, since those Mongols are nomadic people who like to steal many wives of different race.
> 
> While most Chinese prefer to marry with the person of his/her own background.
> 
> And the Japanese also love light hair and light eyes because they have suffered some heavily inferiority complex against the West.
> 
> While we have 5000 years old of civilization, we are very proud of ourselves, we are not some rootless people without its own civilization, who will also start to worship other people's idea.



Honestly I 've never bee to china or anywhere else in asia , but I looked at this Wikipedia map and I got the impression that the mongols are considered Chinese today ...


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

BeyondHeretic said:


> Honestly I 've never bee to china or anywhere else in asia , but I looked at this Wikipedia map and I got the impression that the mongols are considered Chinese today ...



We are both Mongoloids, but Mongols generally look more like primitive brutes.

And they have once conquered us, but their Khan claimed to be the Chinese Emperor, so we also accept this part of their Empire into our history, but it doesn't mean all history of the Mongol Empire is included into the Chinese history.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We are both Mongoloids, but Mongols generally look more like primitive brutes.
> 
> And they have once conquered us, but their Khan claimed to be the Chinese Emperor, so we also accept this part of their Empire into our history, but it doesn't mean all history of the Mongol Empire is included into the Chinese history.



What is the Chinese theory regarding to the appearance/birth of two different language families in Asia: 1) Altaic (TurkoMongol) and 2) Sino-Tibetan?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> What is the Chinese theory regarding to the appearance/birth of two different language families in Asia: 1) Altaic (TurkoMongol) and 2) Sino-Tibetan?



The Altaic people carried more primitive aDNA like C, but later they used to absorb a good number of N and R1a, while we Sino-Tibetan people are relatively newcomers with primarily being the O3 carriers.


----------



## Persian Achaemenid Empire

The scythians were a part of a tribe which we will call Iranic tribe. They were a nomadic Iranians people.
They did not speak Persian but what does that have to do with anything? If I could not speak Persian it does not mean I am not Persian by blood. DNA does not depend on your lingustics. 

Here is a sycthian at behistoon inscripition in Iran from 2500 years ago.


----------



## Surenas

Alienoz_TR said:


> 3) connecting light skinned Scythians to dark skinned Iranians is a bit exaggeration. I mean No offence to cultural exchange, but making them one race is something like putting Apple and orange into same basket and calling fruit.



Why don't you understand that skin color means completely nothing? Morphologically is much more important. For instance, Iranids are morphologically classified under the Mediterranean race, while you can even find Nordic influences among Iranians.



> The Irano-nordoid, or Irano-Afghan race occupies most of the Iranian plateau, areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and areas of northern Iraq and western Turkey (Kurd land). Obviously associated with the Aryan peoples of whom Iran derives its name. For the purpose of this article Irano-Afghan shall include all groups defined as Iranid, Nordindid, and those in such character.
> 
> Their point of origin is the subject of much debate. Some contend that these peoples migrated from central Asia. I personally tend to the thought that the Irano-nordoid stock was indigenous to Iran.
> 
> *The race is categorized as part of the greater Mediterranid race according to Coon, but is differentiated by its taller stature, long-headed with deep occiput, long prominent nose, sloping forehead, bony face, greater beard and body hair growth, shorter trunk, wider upper body, and longer limbs. Most tend towards lighter or moderate pigmentation. The bone structure is much heavier than their Arab neighbors. Metrically they are very similar to the corded people who invaded Europe. **These people were known as the battle axe peoples. They were a warrior race who invaded Europe in the early neolithic era. Many Nordics also retain a very similar head form, with maybe a little less exageration of features and less of a tendency towards nasal convexivity.
> *
> In europe the form is less prominent and often intermixed with alpine or other local variants. But nevertheless it does appear, occasionally in northern Europe, particularly among nordic nations.
> 
> It comprises the principle stock of Iran's people. Today Persians, Gilanis, Gilakis, Mazanderanis, Kurds, Lurs, most Baluchi (except those with negroid and/or Veddoid admixture), Dari, Pashto, some Azeris, and some Tajik tribes exhibit this form. In Azerbaijan this physical type may exhibit brachycephaly (rounded-headedness). To a much lesser extent such forms are present in northern India. In Iraq those who are descendants of the Mesopotamian Babylonian sometimes show a similar form. Bones from archaelogical sites show that they have been in Iran for quite a long time.
> 
> Peoples Compared Cranial Similarity
> Iran & Sub-Saharan Africa 12%
> Iran & Australo-Melanesian 25%
> Iran & Eskimo 25%
> Iran & East Asia 34%
> Iran & Pacific Island 40%
> Iran & Nubia 43%
> Iran & India 55%
> Iran & Greece 59%
> Iran & Somalia 64%
> Iran & South Egypt 65%
> Iran & Switzerland 67%
> Iran & Ameridian 69%
> Iran & North Egypt 77%
> Iran & Portugal 77%
> Iran & North Africa 80%
> Iran & England 82%
> Iran & France 84%
> Iran & Russia 84%
> Iran & Germany 86%
> Iran & Central Europe 88%
> Iran & Jericho 88%
> *Iran & Denmark 91%*


----------



## Surenas

I came across this text of Herodotus:



> The achievement of Deioces [...] was to unite under his rules the peoples of Media - Busae, Parataceni, Struchates, Arizanti, Budii, Magi.
> 
> The Persian nation contains a number of tribes [...]: the Pasargadae, Maraphii, and Maspii, upon which all the other tribes are dependent. Of these, the Pasargadae are the most distinguished; they contain the clan of the Achaemenids from which spring the Perseid kings. Other tribes are the Panthialaei, Derusiaei, *Germanii,* all of which are attached to the soil, the remainder -the Dai, Mardi, Dropici, Sagarti, being nomadic.



Cyrus

We still have a city called Kerman (German) and a provence called Sistan (Sakastan) which is named after the Scythians/Sakas. The name 'Alan' found in France still goes back to Iranian (Alans) migration to Europe, especially to France and Spain.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Altaic people carried more primitive aDNA like C, but later they used to absorb a good number of N and R1a, while we Sino-Tibetan people are relatively newcomers with primarily being the O3 carriers.



Personally i think the people stretching from Japan to Ural Mountains (or perhaps to Europe) developed a isolated proto-language structure in primitive ages of human history without being influenced by Indo-European language and Sino-Tibetan languages.

Ancient European languages similar in structure to Ural-Altai languages disappeared in favor of Indo-European language expansion by 2000 BC to 1000 BC. Cause of it can be culturally advanced Mesopotamian writing system and traders.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> Personally i think the people stretching from Japan to Ural Mountains (or perhaps to Europe) developed a isolated proto-language structure in primitive ages of human history without being influenced by Indo-European language and Sino-Tibetan languages.
> 
> Ancient European languages similar in structure to Ural-Altai languages disappeared in favor of Indo-European language expansion by 2000 BC to 1000 BC. Cause of it can be culturally advanced Mesopotamian writing system and traders.



The Japanese even carries more archaic marker like D, they are closely related to the Negritos in Southeast Asia.

Those Japanese who carries O3 are most descended of the ancient Chinese sailors.

Also, the R1b folks in Central Asia are primarily Turkic marker, it has nothing to do with the R1b in West Europe.

Yeah, i've also heard the theory about Uralids being the true descendant of the first Cro-Magnons in Europe.


----------



## Alienoz_TR

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The Japanese even carries more archaic marker like D, they are closely related to the Negritos in Southeast Asia.
> 
> Those Japanese who carries O3 are most descended of the ancient Chinese sailors.
> 
> Also, the R1b folks in Central Asia are primarily Turkic marker, it has nothing to do with the R1b in West Europe.
> 
> Yeah, i've also heard the theory about Uralids being the true descendant of the first Cro-Magnons in Europe.



I was Talking about languages, not about genetics. But because you started it, read this: 

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap24.html

What interesting might be this, either: similarity between The languages of japanese Ainus and Spanish Basques.



> The Ainu language is strangely similar to the Basque language (Ainu & Basque Language Correlation)


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Alienoz_TR said:


> I was Talking about languages, not about genetics. But because you started it, read this:
> 
> http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap24.html
> 
> What interesting might be this, either: similarity between The languages of japanese Ainus and Spanish Basques.



The myth about the Ainu people being the Basques of Asia has been debunked, the Ainu people are pro-Mongoloid who shares many common features with the Caucasoid, thus this indicates a common Eurasian ancestry.


----------



## Ethiopian Dude

BeyondHeretic said:


> I think the fascination with ancient scythians mainly stems from the fact that *they are now extinct* , like everyone can go to Italy and see for themselves how Romans weren't anything special , but Scythian are imo , romanticized by most scholars because of their traits.



they are not extinct their decedents live in western Europe mostly in England , Scotland, Germany, Holland and some Nordic countries. The earliest English historians claimed Scythian heritage for the Anglo Saxon race.

*The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
Annals to A.D. 381*

The island Britain1 is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British),2 Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. *The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia,3 and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; *and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side;4 which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda,5 from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).


The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals in Old English chronicling the history of the Anglo-Saxons. The original manuscript of the Chronicle was created late in the 9th century, probably in Wessex, during the reign of Alfred the Great. Multiple copies were made of that original which were distributed to monasteries across England, where they were independently updated. In one case, the Chronicle was still being actively updated in 1154.
Nine manuscripts survive in whole or in part, though not all are of equal historical value and none of them is the original version. The oldest seems to have been started towards the end of Alfred's reign, while the most recent was written at Peterborough Abbey after a fire at that monastery in 1116. Almost all of the material in the Chronicle is in the form of annals, by year; the earliest are dated at 60 BC (the annals' date for Caesar's invasions of Britain), and historical material follows up to the year in which the chronicle was written, at which point contemporary records begin. These manuscripts collectively are known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
The Chronicle is not unbiased: there are occasions when comparison with other medieval sources makes it clear that the scribes who wrote it omitted events or told one-sided versions of stories; there are also places where the different versions contradict each other. *Taken as a whole, however, the Chronicle is the single most important historical source for the period in England between the departure of the Romans and the decades following the Norman Conquest. Much of the information given in the Chronicle is not recorded elsewhere. In addition, the manuscripts are important sources for the history of the English language;* in particular, the later Peterborough text is one of the earliest examples of Middle English in existence.


----------



## ThunderCat

Alienoz_TR said:


> OK, to which race belong Pakistanis? Balouch? Pashtun? Sindi? Punjabi? Neither. Scythians were nomadic tribes who were not homogenous. Pre-Jesus era was same as today where ethnic groups live side by side; but borders were not clear. Therefore you cant bring any evidence on how much Iranic or how much Nordic or how much Uralic or how much Caucasian the Scythians were.
> 
> Considering Scythians an Iranic group makes them non-indigenous to Desht-i Qypchak or Eurasian Steppes, native peoples existed before Scythians. Languages dont appear all sudden one day.



Pakistanis belong to the Indo-Iranic race mixed with some possible Elamite and Dravidian populations. Indo-Iranic peopls are divided into Iranic and Indo-Aryan peoples. Baloch and Pakhtuns are Iranic while Punjabis, Sindhis and Kashmirs are Indo-Aryan. 

Scythians might have spoken different languages, but probably related. Scythians did mix with other races and that is fact.

Also you wonder how did Scythians disappear so fast. Well the book I read on them states exactly that. The Scythians dissapeared from the pages of history (about 300BC) as fast as they appeared (about 700-800 BC). 

Can I ask what race do the people of Turkey belong to? Anatolian, Iranic, Semitic, Turko-Mongol, or Greek or maybe Caucasian or maybe all of those but speaking the same language?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Ethiopian Dude said:


> they are not extinct their decedents live in western Europe mostly in England , Scotland, Germany, Holland and some Nordic countries. The earliest English historians claimed Scythian heritage for the Anglo Saxon race.
> 
> *The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
> Annals to A.D. 381*
> 
> The island Britain1 is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British),2 Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. *The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia,3 and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; *and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side;4 which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda,5 from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).
> 
> 
> The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals in Old English chronicling the history of the Anglo-Saxons. The original manuscript of the Chronicle was created late in the 9th century, probably in Wessex, during the reign of Alfred the Great. Multiple copies were made of that original which were distributed to monasteries across England, where they were independently updated. In one case, the Chronicle was still being actively updated in 1154.
> Nine manuscripts survive in whole or in part, though not all are of equal historical value and none of them is the original version. The oldest seems to have been started towards the end of Alfred's reign, while the most recent was written at Peterborough Abbey after a fire at that monastery in 1116. Almost all of the material in the Chronicle is in the form of annals, by year; the earliest are dated at 60 BC (the annals' date for Caesar's invasions of Britain), and historical material follows up to the year in which the chronicle was written, at which point contemporary records begin. These manuscripts collectively are known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
> The Chronicle is not unbiased: there are occasions when comparison with other medieval sources makes it clear that the scribes who wrote it omitted events or told one-sided versions of stories; there are also places where the different versions contradict each other. *Taken as a whole, however, the Chronicle is the single most important historical source for the period in England between the departure of the Romans and the decades following the Norman Conquest. Much of the information given in the Chronicle is not recorded elsewhere. In addition, the manuscripts are important sources for the history of the English language;* in particular, the later Peterborough text is one of the earliest examples of Middle English in existence.



Anglo-Saxons carry very little R1a, thus they are not the descendants of Scythians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqalvi

Reference to OMG, Does history of India start from M B Quasim in Canada??? Son Indian civilization is 10,000-20,000 year old, first read the history then open your mouth.
o	Thank
forcetrip thanked this.
Reply Reply With Quote 
3.	02-21-2013 02:36 PM#54
MST 

FULL MEMBERS 

Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Answer:
Should that be the language of civilized people, with a civilization 10,000-20,000 year old??? This is their way. That means the man doesnt even know any civilization or its start. Kindly just tell us was your civilization like Gandhijis or like Murarji Desais?? 

You say your civilization 10,000-20,000 year old
Is it in the darkness of some cave of the Pluto? Why is it hidden from the eyes of history?

History says for the whole earth:
20,000 years ago Paleolithic Age all over No civilization anywhere
10,000 years ago Neolithic Age only in Mesopotamia No civilization anywhere
7,000 BC Neolithic Age in Indus Valley also No civilization anywhere
6,000 BC Neolithic Age in Egypt also No civilization anywhere
3100 BC Civilization in only Mesopotamia and Egypt Nowhere else
2600 BC Civilization in Indus Valley also
2500 BC Sanskritic Aryas still in the Carpathians of Hungary, in Neolithic Age; till then no words in their language for lion, tiger, elephant, goat, sea, desert, palm tree, acacia; poised to leave due to indispensable circumstances. 
2100-1900 BC Sanskritic race in Afghanistan, robs IVC caravans to and from Central Asia. Indus Civilization declines. Caravans stop. Sanskritic Aryan barbarians cross over to the Indus Valley and invade it; destroy it, massacre the natives (desyos); Moenjodaro Massacre 1700 BC 
Farooq alvi

Your question: Does history of India start from MB Quasim in Canada??? 
Answer: No, it starts from the invasions of Sanskritic Aryan barbarians on the Indus Civilization 1900 BC, with Moenjodar msassacre 1700 BC accompanied by a Dark Millennium 1500-500, called Vedic Age. 
Ample quotes available if needed
Farooq alvi 24/3/13

New Thread:
India is the ancient name of Pakistan

(1) Like Mesopotamia the ancient Greek name of Iraq, India is the ancient Greek name of Pakistan. All ancient literatures point towards this fact. For example, the Holy Avesta (c. 600 BC) of Zoroastrianism, Admiral Scylax&#8217;s account of India (517-509 BC), father of Geography Hecataeus&#8217;s Periodos Ges (505 BX), Historie of father of History Herodotus (c. 440 BC), Indica of Royal Physician Ctesias (415-398 BC), Syriac, Greek, Latin literatures of early Christianity, etc etc all confine India of their times to the territories of present-day Pakistan, not mentioning any other part of the Subcontinent. They even give its boundaries: Iran to it west, Erythraean (Arabian) Sea to its south, great desert to its east and Hindukush Range beyond (to its north). 

(2) Etymologically also, India, a derivative from Indus, means Indus country or country around the Indus; it cannot mean a country of the Ganges. Sensibly, this name cannot be taken away from the Indus to the Ganges, to mean it Bharat.

(3) Also Pakistan, though a beautiful and sacred modern name; yet, being the acronym of the modern names of its constituents, and those constituents lying on both sides of the Indus, it also carries the meaning of India, the Indus country. Thus, the meaning of India is contained in the word Pakistan. This is a relationship between the words of India and Pakistan, which does not exist between the words India and Bharat. 

(4) Moreover, India carries the sense of black and Bharat the sense of white. So, the two are antonyms of each other. No sane person would call the same cow some times white cow and at another time black cow. 
Farooq alvi 24/3/13


----------



## Gothic

depiction of a scythian fighting proto gerco-roman foot soldier 












depiction of scythians on a greek art piece

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vostok

I realize my ignorance - until recently I thought that the Scythians were Mongolian tribe. Now I know that the Scythians were Caucasoids, there are much of Scythians genes in the genotype of the Russians.


----------



## Gothic

vostok said:


> I realize my ignorance - until recently I thought that the Scythians were Mongolian tribe. Now I know that the Scythians were Caucasoids, there are much of Scythians genes in the genotype of the Russians.



well technically they were not caucasoid , cause they didn't come from the caucasus where georgia , armenia and azerbaijan today are . i recall even in our history books they used to teach us that Aryans came from somewhere east of the caspian sea . the ancient residents of the west of the caspian sea were are called Sarmatians , as opposed to well Scythians

what i understand reading online sources about scythians they were to a degree mixed with all their neighbors but they eventually gave way to the current sino-mongol residents of central asia either due to war or the teachings of buddha . 

One thing is for sure , the grey steppe wolf did not come from turkey . it's the scythian wolf . eastern iran i think is a continuation of the scythian desert to an extent . a country like kazakhstan itself has diverse landscapes : deserts , steppe , forest and else .. much like eastern and north eastern iran.

*Scythian*
ANCIENT PEOPLE
WRITTEN BY:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
See Article History
Alternative Titles: Sacae, Saka, Scyth

RELATED TOPICS

Anacharsis
Dionysius Exiguus
Germanic peoples
Greco-Persian Wars
Roma
Norman
Pazyryk
Rechabite
Rusyn
Scythian art
Scythian, also called Scyth, Saka, and Sacae, member of a nomadic people, originally of Iranian stock, known from as early as the 9th century bce who migrated westward from Central Asia to southern Russia and Ukraine in the 8th and 7th centuries bce. The Scythians founded a rich, powerful empire centred on what is now Crimea. The empire survived for several centuries before succumbing to the Sarmatians during the period from the 4th century bce to the 2nd century ce.







Scythian gold belt buckle with turquoise inlay, from Siberia; in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg
_Novosti Press Agency_

Until the 20th century, most of what was known of the history of the Scythians came from the account of them by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who visited their territory. In modern times that record has been expanded chiefly by Russian and other anthropologists excavating kurgans in such places as Tyva and Kazakhstan.

The Scythians were feared and admired for their prowess in war and, in particular, for their horsemanship. They were among the earliest people to master the art of riding, and their mobility astonished their neighbours. The migration of the Scythians from Asia eventually brought them into the territory of the Cimmerians, who had traditionally controlled the Caucasus and the plains north of the Black Sea. In a war that lasted 30 years, the Scythians destroyed the Cimmerians and set themselves up as rulers of an empire stretching from west Persia through Syria and Judaea to the borders of Egypt. The Medes, who ruled Persia, attacked them and drove them out of Anatolia, leaving them finally in control of lands which stretched from the Persian border north through the Kuban and into southern Russia.

The Scythians were remarkable not only for their fighting ability but also for the complex culture they produced. They developed a class of wealthy aristocrats who left elaborate graves—such as the kurgansin the Valley of the Tsars (or Kings) near Arzhan, 40 miles (60 km) from Kyzyl, Tyva—filled with richly worked articles of gold, as well as beads of turquoise, carnelian, and amber, and many other valuable objects. This class of chieftains, the Darius Iabout 513 bce.


SIMILAR TOPICS

Bengali
Kuki
Zulu
Hernici
Fang
Roma
Hebrew
Efik
Tatar
Hwicce
The Royal Scyths were headed by a sovereign whose authority was transmitted to his son. Eventually, about the time of Herodotus, the royal family intermarried with Greeks. In 339 the ruler Ateas was killed at age 90 while fighting Philip II of Macedonia. The community was eventually destroyed in the 2nd century bce, man’s household, including wife, servants, and a number of horses.

Despite these characteristics, their many and exquisite grave goods, notably the animal-style gold artifacts, reveal that the Scythians were also culturally advanced. Further, some gold ornaments thought to have been created by Greeks for the Scythians were shown to have predated their contact with Greek civilization. _See also_ Scythian art.

*LEARN MORE in these related articles:*
Scythian art
decorated objects, mainly arms, jewelry, and trappings for horses, tents, and wagons, produced by nomadic tribes that roamed Central Asia from slightly east of the Altai Mountains in Inner Mongolia t...
READ THIS ARTICLE
history of Europe: The people of the Metal Ages
...of these people has been preserved. The main groups presented by these texts are the Celts in western Europe, the Germanic people of northern Europe, the Slavs from eastern Europe, and Cimmerians, ...
READ THIS ARTICLE



history of Europe: Prestige and status
...Europe a new regional complex had developed northwest of the Black Sea, in which there were both inhumation and cremation graves clustered in large cemeteries. This complex is often attributed to S...
READ THIS ARTICLE



in Anacharsis
Legendary Scythian prince included in some ancient Greek lists as one of the Seven Wise Men and extolled as an exemplar of primitive virtue. Herodotus describes how, after extensive...
READ THIS ARTICLE
in Dionysius Exiguus
English Denis The Little celebrated 6th-century canonist who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, the use of which spread through the employment of his new Easter...
READ THIS ARTICLE
in Germanic peoples
Any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages. The origins of the Germanic peoples are obscure. During the late Bronze Age, they are believed to have inhabited southern...
READ THIS ARTICLE



in Greco-Persian Wars
Greco-Persian Wars, series of wars fought between Greek states and Persia from 492 to 449 BCE.
READ THIS ARTICLE



in Roma
An ethnic group of traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India but live in modern times worldwide, principally in Europe. Most Roma speak some form of Romany,...
READ THIS ARTICLE



in Norman
Member of those Vikings, or Norsemen, who settled in northern France (or the Frankish kingdom), together with their descendants. The Normans founded the duchy of Normandy and sent...
READ THIS ARTICLE
*MORE ABOUT Scythian*
20 REFERENCES FOUND IN BRITANNICA ARTICLES

---------------------------

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vostok

Gothic said:


> well technically they were not caucasoid , cause they didn't come from the caucasus where georgia , armenia and azerbaijan today are . i recall even in our history books they used to teach us that Aryans came from somewhere east of the caspian sea . the ancient residents of the west of the caspian sea were are called Sarmatians , as opposed to well Scythians
> 
> what i understand reading online sources about scythians they were to a degree mixed with all their neighbors but they eventually gave way to the current sino-mongol residents of central asia either due to war or the teachings of buddha .


I want to say that I did not know Scythians were Europeoids, light skin, light eyes - at least part of them were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gothic

It is about the ancient world and how different things were back then. not that the light bulb wasn't invented yet , but rather the current sino-mongol afghans of central asia didn't simply exist back then !


----------



## vostok

Gothic said:


> It is about the ancient world and how different things were back then. not that the light bulb wasn't invented yet , but rather the current sino-mongol afghans of central asia didn't simply exist back then !


I once read that in the ancient Chinese manuscripts there was a mention of the golden-haired pale-skinned people living north of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gothic

vostok said:


> I once read that in the ancient Chinese manuscripts there was a mention of the golden-haired pale-skinned people living north of China.




there aren't many sources regarding the scythians , not books neither online sources .. but what i assume is that the scythians then lived westward to china .. even in the "shahnameh" that you know about , there 's a part that says "from this tribe i have not heard , nor i have read in the books.." something like that , suggesting that even the iranians don't know much about scythians. 

expansion of people has always been like the phenomenon of america , so the scythian theory is not all irrational

چو کوتاه شد شاخ و هم بیخشان

نگوید جهاندار تاریخشان

کزیشان جز از نام نشنیده‌ام

نه در نامهٔ خسروان دیده‌ام


----------



## django

vostok said:


> I once read that in the ancient Chinese manuscripts there was a mention of the golden-haired pale-skinned people living north of China.


I believe those folks were of Kushan origin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

vostok said:


> I once read that in the ancient Chinese manuscripts there was a mention of the golden-haired pale-skinned people living north of China.



According to some European anthropologist forum

this is the Proto-Iranic phenotype







this is the Proto-Slavic phenotype







Proto-Iranic and Proto-Slavic look almost identical because the duo blood brothers were both the descendant of the Corded Ware culture in Russia, hence both are Satem people from genetic and linguistic point of view.


This is the original Satem people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


----------



## vostok

By the way, such names as London, Don, Dniester, Dnieper come from the Scythian word "danu", which means the "river".


----------



## Gothic

this thread is not political it's historical , it's about how different the ethnic composition of the steppe has been before the sino-mongol afghans arrived . that once the aryans lived there .. right there .

----------------------

and it's not an all irrational theory , america for exmaple was populated by indians before the white hords came .

scythian social caste's 


























The real reason for the fall of Sassanid kingdom :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia


With conflict erupting between Persian and Parthian factions, the empire was no longer centralized.

When Western academics first investigated the Muslim conquest of Persia, they only had to rely on the accounts of the Armenian Christian bishop Sebeos, and accounts in Arabic that were written some time after the events they describe. The most significant work was probably that of Arthur Christensen, and his _L’Iran sous les Sassanides_, published in Copenhagen and Paris in 1944.[9]

However recent scholarship, both Iranian and Western,[_citation needed_] has begun to question the traditional narrative. Parvaneh Pourshariati, in her _Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran_, published in 2008, provides both a detailed overview of the problematic nature of trying to establish exactly what happened, and a great deal of original research that questions fundamental facts of the traditional narrative, including the timeline and specific dates.

Pourshariati's central thesis is that contrary to what was commonly assumed, the Sassanian Empire was highly decentralized, and was in fact a "confederation" with the Parthians, who themselves retained a high level of independence.[10] Despite their recent victories over the Byzantine Empire, the Parthians unexpectedly withdrew from the confederation, and the Sassanians were thus ill-prepared and ill-equipped to mount an effective and cohesive defense against the Muslim armies.[11] Moreover, the powerful northern and eastern Parthian families, the kust-i khwarasan and kust-i adurbadagan, withdrew to their respective strongholds and made peace with the Arabs, refusing to fight alongside the Sassanians.

Another important theme of Pourshariati's study is a re-evaluation of the traditional timeline. Pourshariati argues that the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia "took place, not, as has been conventionally believed, in the years 632–634, after the accession of the last Sasanian king Yazdgerd III (632–651) to power, but in the period from 628 to 632."[12] An important consequence of this change in timeline means that the Arab conquest started precisely when the Sassanians and Parthians were engaged in internecine warfare over succession to the Sassanian throne.[12]


d Parthian (later Sassanid) empires had been the Euphrates Rive

-------------------------

the key word is parthian , it emphasizes that if parthians indeed fought arabs , it might have been all different today .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Intsar Ahmad

waraich66 said:


> Scythians are the forebears of most Indo- European nations today, and yet we know so little about them. A list of nations :
> 
> In Europe
> 
> Celtic - lived in Scythia, as per ancient Irish annals; the Tuatha de Danann even brought back a contingent of Scythians with them
> 
> Germanic tribes - descended from Scythian tribes that wandered over into Europe from little Scythia, which was near the Black Sea; prior to that these Scythians had lived in what is today Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but after fighting the Scythian tribe of Massagetae (i.e. 'great getae'), they migrated west. They were chasing another mysterious people,the Cimmerians, from whom the Welsh(Cymru) claim, and certain Germanic tribes (Sugambri) trace, their descent.
> 
> Scandinavia - most of the pantheon worshipped by the Svearna (ancestors of the Swedes) were people called the Aesir. They came from the East and fought with the extant Vanir. Odin (Wotan) and Thor were from this family. Additionally the Gotarna of Southern Sweden were Goths and related to the Getae of Thrace, the Visigoth and Ostrogoths and the Massagetae of Asia.
> 
> Saxons - a tribe not mentioned by name in ancient history of tribes but evident that Sakson could be another spelling ie sons of Saka (the ancient and proper spelling of Scythian). Even Saxon historians described the men sent back to mainland Europe to get more men for the invasion and settlement of Briton as returning to Scythia
> 
> Sarmatians - the lands of the Poles and Russians was ancient Sarmatia; Sarmatians were the product of Scythian men and Amazon women, hence the cultural and language differences between Germanics and Slavs
> 
> In Asia
> 
> Parthians - originally united around the Pars tribe, Iran was also ruled by a Scythian dynasty in the form of the Parthians, who were a clan from the Dahae tribe. The Dahae are linked to the Goths, as per a strange paragraph in the the Annals and Deeds of the Goths.
> 
> Jat & Rajput tribes - of northern India, especially the Punjab have been linked by British ethnographers to Scythian origins, although heavily mixed with the pre-Indo European Dravidian population; probably have Kushan, Chionite, & Massagetae blood.
> 
> Afghans - still settled in the area where the Sakas (i.e. Scythian) migrated; probably more likely to be descended from the Massagetae, Scythians and especially the Hephthalites (another Scythic nation), a brutal, warlike people that savaged both the Persians and the Turks till the two united and destroyed their kingdom.
> 
> In essence, the nation of Scyths (Sakas) spread from the western coast of Ireland to the bay of Bengal.
> 
> Misconception - central asia was exclusively turco-mongol in ancient times
> 
> Reality - the nascent Turks (Gok Turk back then) and the Mongols were living near the Tien Shan and Altai range. This is not to say that populations did not mix. The finding of red-haired mummies in the Gobi proves this, but it is clear that central Asia, especially between the Oxus and Jaxartes river and most of Afghanistan was Ancient Scythia, and that the Scythians were nomadic caucosoids.


Gujjars are also Scythians. General Cunningham identifies the Gujjars with Kushanas (Indo-Scythian people) of eastern tartars. He explains that Korso and Kushan written on the coins of Kushana King Kanishka is same as Gorsi and Kusane clans of Gurjars respectively. He further adds that Gujars came to India in the 3rd wave of migration around the mid third century CE. Ibbeston also supports Indo-Scythians descend of Gurjars. K.S.Singh also support the theory on the basis that beside Jats, Gurjars are the only race of foreign origin in north west part of Indian subcontinent who are known to have been powerful during early centuries of Christian era Thus, it is believe that they entered Indian subcontinent from North-west Indian Frontier and established themselves in the Indus region, Hazara, undivided Punjab, Kashmir and Rajasthan It has been suggested that the Gurjars and along with people from northwestern India, merged with the Hephthalites and formed the Rajput clan.


----------

