Why would Greek civilization be considered Western and Iranian civilization

[AUz]

There is no such thing as middle eastern civilization dumbo, and there was no such thing as 'Mediterranean' civilizations. They are considered the founding peoples of Western Civilization for a reason.

Dumbo, there ARE things called Mediterranean civilizations...Rome, Greece, Carthage, Egypt etc were all Mediterranean civilizations..Note, idiot, that I am writing civilizationS..not just 'one' monolithic civilization...

And yes, they are considered the founding peoples of 'Western civilization' because they conquered and tamed the savage, uncultured westerners and gave them civilization...the civilization that these Mediterranean civilizations derived all from the East...

Sad that without East, west is nothing but just random bunch of inferior beings who couldn't even built basic toilets

By being drivers and street-sweepers you surpass the amazing achievements of our people? Just more proof of your intellectual inferiority (as if your quick emotional devolution wasn't already an indication).

Yeah...little whittey..thats why we have a higher average income than your sorry white assss in this country..by 'being drivers'..offcourse...LOL!

Do I even need to mention how Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans, Chinese etc) just DOMINATE American higher education sector w.r.t to our percentage population?

Go and masturbate on ****, the things your girls are famous for...

 

[BeyondHeretic]

So Iran never taught that Alexander the Great conquered Persia and created the Hellenistic period in Iranian history.

Read up on Seleucid Empire

Seleucid Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its real history

Even the Seleucid empire is considered an Iranian dynasty , their Persian name is سلوکیان which means "the isolationists" , it obviously means they were isolated from the rest of the Hellenistic world.

But Persians were later defeated. On the other hand, did Alexander partially conquered Persia or completely conquered Persia? Did Alexander partially conquered India sucontinent or did he completely conquered India subcontinent? One of them is partial and another is a complete conquest. Tell me which one is which.

There was no india back then , there were indian city-states and villages and there was part of india that belonged to Persians.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Actually, its the ambition of Alexander the Great that conquered Persia. Persia was weaken but it was still much bigger and stronger than Alexander. And Persia never completely defeated the Greeks. But Greeks completely defeated Persia. And the Selucid empire completely control Persia for a long time. That should also be consider as part of Greek domination of Persia.

Again , Greece was not conquered because it was simply of no importance , the world back then revolved around Babylon.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Greek and Roman more close related to Persian than they are to say Celtic or Germanic? Greek and Roman had dark hair and eyes and olive skin, certainly not northern European looks. Even today's Italians are predominantly Mediterranean look rather than northern European in appearance. Linguistically, Persian is Indo European as well. The concept of a European continent is modern and not a classical concept. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly didn't consider northern European tribes as civilized and being their equals. Furthermore, it annoys me to no end when people talk about English letters. They are not English letters. They are Roman letters which were adapted from Greek letters which were adapted from Phoenician letters which were the very first alphabets. As for Buddha, whether such a person ever existed is up for debate. In other words, no proof.

Greeks and romans aren't related to Persians at all , Persians were descendants of scythians who moved into iran ; greeks were people who migrated there from other parts of Europe due to an ice age , romans were north Africans who invaded the Italian peninsula and fought the etruscans.

Alexander's Army moved East instead of moving West into deep inside Europe.

maybe alexander's army comprised of western Europeans too ? historical revisionists believe that the crusades were a continuation of Persian-roman wars , with that sort of logic one can put alexander's wars in the same category

 

[Surenas]

Greeks and romans aren't related to Persians at all , Persians were descendants of scythians who moved into iran ; greeks were people who migrated there from other parts of Europe due to an ice age , romans were north Africans who invaded the Italian peninsula and fought the etruscans.

Not entirely correct. There is the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis, which claims a relation between Greeks, Armenian and Indo-Iranian people:

Graeco-Aryan

Graeco-Aryan (or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan) is a hypothetical clade within the Indo-European family, ancestral to the Greek language, the Armenian language, and the Indo-Iranian languages. Graeco-Aryan unity would have become divided into Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian by the mid 3rd millennium BC. The Phrygian language would also be included.[citation needed] Conceivably, Proto-Armenian would have been located between Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, consistent with the fact that Armenian shares certain features only with Indo-Iranian (the satem change) but others only with Greek (s > h).

Graeco-Armeno-Aryan has comparatively wide support among Indo-Europeanists for the Indo-European Homeland to be located in the Armenian Highland. Early and strong evidence was given by Euler's 1979 examination on shared features in Greek and Sanskrit nominal flection.

Used in tandem with the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian).
In the context of the Kurgan hypothesis, Greco-Aryan is also known as "Late PIE" or "Late Indo-European" (LIE), suggesting that Greco-Aryan forms a dialect group which corresponds to the latest stage of linguistic unity in the Indo-European homeland in the early part of the 3rd millennium BC. By 2500 BC, Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian had separated, moving westward and eastward from the Pontic Steppe, respectively.

If Graeco-Aryan is a valid group, Grassmann's law may have a common origin in Greek and Sanskrit. (Note, however, that Grassmann's law in Greek postdates certain sound changes that happened only in Greek and not Sanskrit, which suggests that it cannot strictly be an inheritance from a common Graeco-Aryan stage. Rather, it is more likely an areal feature that spread across a then-contiguous Graeco-Aryan-speaking area after early Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian had developed into separate dialects but before they ceased being in geographic contact.)

Graeco-Aryan is invoked in particular in studies of comparative mythology, e.g. by West (1999) and Watkins (2001).

Graeco-Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Not entirely correct. There is the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis, which claims a relation between Greeks, Armenian and Indo-Iranian people:



Graeco-Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe the theory is about contemporary Iranians and greeks who have fought wars and traded people ? I was talking about people back then.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Not entirely correct. There is the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis, which claims a relation between Greeks, Armenian and Indo-Iranian people:



Graeco-Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe the theory is about contemporary Iranians and greeks who have fought wars and traded people ? I was talking about people back then.

 

[rmi5]

maybe the theory is about contemporary Iranians and greeks who have fought wars and traded people ? I was talking about people back then.

There is no significant difference between contemporary Iranians and Iranian who lived 2500 ago. a few months ago, I read an article in which they analyzed the DNA of ancient Iranians(from Ancient Iranians buried in the city of Hegmataneh, from Medes era, and I guess from their bones) and contemporary Iranians and they did not found any significant difference.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

There is no significant difference between contemporary Iranians and Iranian who lived 2500 ago. a few months ago, I read an article in which they analyzed the DNA of ancient Iranians(from Ancient Iranians buried in the city of Hegmataneh, from Medes era, and I guess from their bones) and contemporary Iranians and they did not found any significant difference.

well to be honest , I don't trust those dna tests much , cause all those greek , mongol , arab invasions must have had some sort of impact at least

 

[Surenas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Greek and Roman more close related to Persian than they are to say Celtic or Germanic? Greek and Roman had dark hair and eyes and olive skin, certainly not northern European looks. Even today's Italians are predominantly Mediterranean look rather than northern European in appearance. Linguistically, Persian is Indo European as well.

Back in the days the Greek historian Xenophon mentioned that Persians were more white than Greeks:

Xenophon describes the Ethiopians as black and the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops.

White people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rmi5]

well to be honest , I don't trust those dna tests much , cause all those greek , mongol , arab invasions must have had some sort of impact at least

LOL, my dear countryman, you don't trust science?
Actually, the fact is there are some minor impacts, but in contrast to what some people think, those impacts are very limited, and they are limited to some areas close to invaders region.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

LOL, my dear countryman, you don't trust science?
Actually, the fact is there are some minor impacts, but in contrast to what some people think, those impacts are very limited, and they are limited to some areas close to invaders region.

That might be the case for mongols who didn't mix with local population much , but arabs had settlements as far east as Afghanistan.

 

[-SINAN-]

ottomans turks on the other hand were in love with all the Christian tales of greek Byzantium...

Nope that would we wrong. As Ottomans conquered territories far beyond Greece on 3 continents.

 

[rmi5]

That might be the case for mongols who didn't mix with local population much , but arabs had settlements as far east as Afghanistan.

About arabs, DNA analysis has shown that their impact is limited to khouzestan(specially between nomads of khouzestan) and some parts of bushehr and kohgeluyeh, which even it is a low impact, and it makes sense, because these are the regions that had most interactions with arabs.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Nope that would we wrong. As Ottomans conquered territories far beyond Greece on 3 continents.

But that was well after the creation of ottoman empire with the fall of constantinopole ? or Istanbul , whichever you like ; I was talking about the Seljuk turks who invaded Byzantium/Anatolia , not the people afterwards who conquered territories on 3 continents like you said.

About arabs, DNA analysis has shown that their impact is limited to khouzestan(specially between nomads of khouzestan) and some parts of bushehr and kohgeluyeh, which even it is a low impact, and it makes sense, because these are the regions that had most interactions with arabs.

maybe you're right