Iranian Chill Thread

[Best Land]

Can third generation Iranian diaspora speak farsi language?

80% of them can speak farsi.
like turks in germany that can speak turkish.

 

[rmi5]

Can second, third generation Iranian diaspora speak farsi language?

It depends. Most first generations can speak farsi but usually they are not fluent, it's less possible for second generation to know farsi, and I doubt about the third generations. But, it depends on whether there has been marriage with other Iranian in their 1st or 2nd generations or not

80% of them can speak farsi.
like turks in germany that still can speak turkish.

How do you know? Are you a 2nd generation? or have you lived outside of Iran?
enlighten us ...

 

[atatwolf]

80% of them can speak farsi.
like turks in germany that can speak turkish.

I noticed that Turks retain their language more effectively than Farsi people in Europe. Maybe it has to do with strongness of the culture or maybe because Iranians don't have big community in Europe.

 

[Targon]

I noticed that Turks retain their language more effectively than Farsi people in Europe. Maybe it has to do with strongness of the culture or maybe because Iranians don't have big community in Europe.

Dude seriously don't, I don't want another flamewar.

 

[INDIC]

I guesss you're solely referring to Hephtalites, then yes they were a heavily mixed, I don't know why they are called Huns in the first place, they have little connection with Huns, may be it was a mistake of Romans, or early ruling elite was from the same stock as European Huns.

What is the origin of White Huns and what language they spoke.

I have seen Pahthuns claim to be arab, jews, and many thing else, but they are none of them.

I read some accounts that they originated out of some ancient East Iranic tribe(perhaps Paktha) who later mixed heavily with later invaders like Scythians and White Huns. Although, I have heard about theories claiming Jewish or Arab origin of Pashtuns.

 

[Charon 2]

The Hund were m

I have seen Pahthuns claim to be arab, jews, and many thing else, but they are none of them.
As far as Huns are concerned, most historians consider them Turkic because of their language. Another theory links them more with mongolia and China, but they have not been Indo-European for sure As far as race is considered, it is a genetics term, and in genetics there is only one race which is human race using this term for any of people's group is very wrong and a very widely mistake by most people Anyway, As far as Turks are concerned, we have both caucasoid and mongoloid elements, which is not a surprise since our region is located exactly in the middle of Asia and Europe. Iranians are also the same, and are a mix of Middle Eastern, Indo-European, and mongoloid elements for the same reason as Turks being so, which is locating exactly in the middle of Asia, ME and Europe. But, it does not mean that the term Turkic or Iranic is only a cultural term, since the same logic can be applied to any nation and no nation is pure. The term Turkic can be referred and understood by our tribal and ancestral roots, and language, and history. The same thing applies to any other nation as well

The Huns who invaded Europe with Attila were mainly Turkic. The elite of "European" Huns spoke probably a Oghur. Turkic language, closely related with the moder Chuvash language. the Huna people and the Hepthalites who invaded the Indian Gupta empire were mainly Eastern Iranian people who were more related with modern Pashtuns. Of course they were also mixed with Turkics but the elite was probably Iranic. The Huna people were definitely Iranian speaking Xionite tribes but the Hepthalites were heavily mixed with Gökturks. The Hepthalite empire was destroyed by a joined military force of Persians and Gökturks

 

[rmi5]

What is the origin of White Huns and what language they spoke.



I read some accounts that they originated out of some ancient East Iranic tribe(perhaps Paktha) who later mixed heavily with later invaders like Scythians and White Huns. Although, I have heard about theories claiming Jewish or Arab origin of Pashtuns.

They are Eastern Iranic tribes, who have a strong connection with Scythians, IMO, That's the most accurate explanation about them

The Hund were m
The Huns who invaded Europe with Attila were mainly Turkic. The elite of "European" Huns spoke probably a Oghur. Turkic language, closely related with the moder Chuvash language. the Huna people and the Hepthalites who invaded the Indian Gupta empire were mainly Eastern Iranian people who were more related with modern Pashtuns. Of course they were also mixed with Turkics but the elite was probably Iranic. The Huna people were definitely Iranian speaking Xionite tribes but the Hepthalites were heavily mixed with Gökturks. The Hepthalite empire was destroyed by a joined military force of Persians and Gökturks

Actually, my knowledge is more about Huns who were accompanying Attila and Invaded Europe. About Hephtalites, I am not sure about what you said. As I have read before, they were an alliance of some Turkic tribes, and some Eastern Iranian tribes. But, I have not seen any source to confirm that they were mostly Eastern Iranian or mostly Turkic. do you have any source to refer to it?

 

[INDIC]

They are Eastern Iranic tribes, who have a strong connection with Scythians, IMO, That's the most accurate explanation about them

History of Pashtuns in Afghanistan is very mysterious but their history in Gandhara(Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan and some regions of South Afghanistan) started in medieval ages before it was inhabited by Indic people who spoke a North-West variant of Prakrit language(the middle Indo-Aryan language).

 

[Prince of Persia]

Man these Pakis are so butt hurt it's unbelievable. They congratulate countries like Iran and Turkey , but inside they're burning.

You'd be suprised how many of them try and pretend to be Persian,Turk,greeks here in the UK

 

[The SiLent crY]

As I said before and your map shows it as well, even Iranologists accept that this land has been ruled by different dynasties. For me, they seem to be different greek dynasties in each region, since the coins and architecture of them has been greek.
BTW, this map is still inaccurate. for example, tabaria(Mazandaran), and hyrkania(Gorgan) were not under parthian rule at all. they annexed in the mid-Sasanid era and during the reign of Bahram.

I'm not sure about the accuracy here but you're wrong about those regions , Mazandaran was very close to ancient Parthia province and Parthians took this province before heading towards west and south from their capital Nisa . Later they took the whole modern Iran and parts of modern Turkey reaching to kingdom of Pontus which was ruled by a Persian dynasty in the west and Armenian kingdom in the north .

Parthians even conquered Armenia a couple of times and this state was usually a satrap of Parthia or Rome .

Apart from what I said , Parthians unlike Sassanians did not have a powerful central government and permanent army and they always relied on their clients and local governments which can confirm what you said regarding not ruling mentioned regions ( If we assume local governments / satraps were not part of Parthian Empire ) .

Parthians were nomad people of modern Turkmenistan / North east of Iran and they had their own traditions and cultures which had been influenced by Greeks but wasn't the same .

In this age you can see more about them , their culture , art , etc : اشكانيان

All the Persian Empires from middle East couldn't move beyond the Indus Valley, even the Arab Empire couldn't move beyond Sindh in Indus valley.

Iranian empires were not interested in the east but you're wrong my friend .

King Nader conquered India ( Parts of it ) :

Nader Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

You'd be suprised how many of them try and pretend to be Persian,Turk,greeks here in the UK

There is nothing surprising in that we all know this.

Iranian empires were not interested in the east but you're wrong my friend .

King Nader conquered India ( Parts of it ) :

Nader Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You got it, he entered Delhi. I was referring to Achaemenid, Parthian and Arab Empires.

 

[The SiLent crY]

No, that map is a joke. That map is saying that it is for 2600 years ago, in which none of parthians or roman empire existed at that time

The map is 001 AD .

around 2000 years ago .

Parthians ( Parni Tribe ) rose in 246 BC and their last king (Artabanus V ) was killed in a duel with Ardashir I in Hormozgan in 224 AD .

 

[rmi5]

I'm not sure about the accuracy here but you're wrong about those regions , Mazandaran was very close to ancient Parthia province and Parthians took this province before heading towards west and south from their capital Nisa . Later they took the whole modern Iran and parts of modern Turkey reaching to kingdom of Pontus which was ruled by a Persian dynasty in the west and Armenian kingdom in the north .

Parthians even conquered Armenia a couple of times and this state was usually a satrap of Parthia or Rome .

Apart from what I said , Parthians unlike Sassanians did not have a powerful central government and permanent army and they always relied on their clients and local governments which can confirm what you said regarding not ruling mentioned regions ( If we assume local governments / satraps were not part of Parthian Empire ) .

Parthians were nomad people of modern Turkmenistan / North east of Iran and they had their own traditions and cultures which had been influenced by Greeks but wasn't the same .

In this age you can see more about them , their culture , art , etc : اشكانيان



Iranian empires were not interested in the east but you're wrong my friend .

King Nader conquered India ( Parts of it ) :

Nader Shah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, you are wrong. being close does not prove anything. In that era, the main power of south caspian was Hyrcania(Gorgan) and they were not part of parthians. They are even the ones who bring the rice from India to this region and started to use it in farms, and cut jungles trees to expand their farms. As I told you before, tabaria, Daylamistan, and Hyrcania was not annexed during that time, until the mid sasanid era.
BTW, none of what you said justifies their greek coins and greek architecture.

 

[The SiLent crY]

S00R3NA I am on this forum since so long, I know Iranians very well. You guys love to tease Arabs.

I don't .

I used to but not anymore .

 

[rmi5]

The map is 001 AD .

around 2000 years ago .

Parthians ( Parni Tribe ) rose in 246 BC and their last king (Artabanus V ) was killed in a duel with Ardashir I in Hormozgan in 224 AD .

That's why saying that a map(which looks like more a joke map) from 2600 years ago belongs to Parthian era is ridiculous.