Scythians - The Greatest Warriors of World

[Ethiopian Dude]

i cant post images for some reason

 

[ThunderCat]

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.

 

[Surenas]

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

You mean Sarmatians or Samaritians?

 

[ThunderCat]

You mean Sarmatians or Samaritians?

Samaritans. spelling

 

[Ethiopian Dude]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

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]

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]

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.

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.