Roman History

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. The word "Iran" is related to the word "Aryan" . The true Aryans in the strict sense are the speakers of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indoeuropean language family - groups that include the Iranians, and most of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India, and Bangladesh, though not southern India (where they speak the totally unrelated Dravidian languages). Though often lighter skinned than Dravidians they are hardly your stereotyped blonde blue eyed ideal of Nazi racial ideology.

Through some complicated convoluted distortion of science the Nazis concocted a racial myth that involved appropriating the word "Aryan", and applying the word to Nordics, and Germans.

A certain macabre irony just now occurred to me.

The Rom people (the Gypsies) had their origins in northern India around a thousand plus years ago, and still speak a northern Indian Indo-Aryan language. They migrated westward via Iran, and the Byzantine Empire into Middle Ages Europe, and became the group we know today as Gypsies.

The Gypsies, like the Jews, were slated for extermination in the death camps. So therefore the one true group of actual "Aryans" in Europe were among the groups slated for death by the Nazis in the name of "Aryan surpremecy".

Yep....that is so true....

The earliest evidence of Indo-European in written form is the treaty between the Indo-European speaking Hittites and the Mittani tribe.

In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza, c. 1380 BC), the hindu deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli's horse training text (circa 1400 BC) includes technical terms such as aika (Vedic Sanskrit eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pañca, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper (Vedic Sanskrit eka, with regular contraction of /ai/ to [eː]) as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has *aiva; compare Vedic eva "only") in general.

Another text has babru(-nnu) (babhru, brown), parita(-nnu) (palita, grey), and pinkara(-nnu) (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of the solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya (Hurrian: maria-nnu), the term for (young) warrior in Sanskrit as well; note mišta-nnu (= miẓḍha,~ Sanskrit mīḍha) "payment (for catching a fugitive)

it's interesting not just because of the antiquity of this written treaty but also because it took place in the Anotolian peninsula virtually on the doorstep of Europe (Greece is across the Bosphorous). It suggests the earliest speakers of Iranian and Greek evolved from these Hindu hittites

I've seen that treaty....

The Hittites borrowed cuniform writing from Old Assyrian which was borrowed from Elamite (all biblical)

Their writing from the aforementioend treaty is the oldest written Indo-European so its quite an eye opener that culturally they are closer to northwest India rather than central Europe/Asia (the supposed traditional homeland of the Indo-Europeans)

I suspect the Kurgan theory is espoused/preferred because it moves the Indo-European homeland closer to Europe

The original Indo-Europeans had arrived in Europe after splitting into two different populations, actually.
The first, the Yamana culture, which was spoken by people of the R1a haplogroup, had arrived from the eastern steppe into Europe as horse taming nomads, and were in fact of the same haplogroup that the Aryans of the east were of. Modern day Slaves and Balts of eastern Europe are also mainly of this haplogroup.
The second group, the Maykop culture, had come out of the Black Sea-Caspian Sea region, and while migratory were primarily agrarian settlers. This group was primarily associated with the R1b haplogroup, and were the primary forebears of Germanic, Celtic, Romance, and Greek speaking peoples.
That's not to say that there was no intermingling between the two groups, because there was clearly. Also, haplogroup I, which had survived since the Ice Age in Europe, remains a large group among Germanic speakers in northern Germany and Scandinavia, as well as many Slavic speakers in the Balkans.

Yes the population groups can be traced genetically to central Asia but the culture/technology is Asian
Cultivation/agriculture/architecture/cities was first developed by the Sumerians (who referred to themselves as the black headed ones) and copied first by the Assyrians then by the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans who passed through northern Iraq/Anatolia from central Asia on their way into Europe

In any case the the whole teutonic superiority/prosperity thing cultivated by the Nazis falls over the further back in history you go

Hitler probably read something about the Aryans while he was in one of those transient homes in Vienna, right after he was refused entry into a prestigious art institute there.

Then he thought of an idea......

Actually, a 19th century German historian accidentally used the word "Aryan" wrongly. Even though he apologized, it stuck. A whole cottage industry of xenophobia grew up in western Europe praising the "Aryan" ancestors of the Europeans. It was this that Hitler and the Nazis found pre-existing, and which they drew upon.

A hundred million people died because somebody didn't check their facts?

Well, I suspect they would have done what they did, even without the word "Aryan."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DzdC6EX6WSs



It turned out I wouldn’t rule Europe in the alternative timeline where Carthage defeated Rome. *sigh*
But probably I would be a rich merchant.

Yes. A minor name change to the ideal race of their ideology is all that would be differnet. The ideology itself, and the megadeaths that followed would all have been the same.

Still, however one may hate the Germans, or even the Nazis themselves, the idea of the Aryan Master Race is not all that worse or different than the idea of the Jewish Chosen People. Both are racially supremacist beliefs, based upon religious superstition. One based on Hindu superstition, the other based upon Hebrew superstition.

Be that as it may, the Jews didn’t commit genocide.

Oh!

Well then that makes Auschwitz okay!

Don't know what your point is. No one here on this thread said they "hated the Germans". And speaking of that I hafta to ask this question.

Did you mean to write "hate the Germans, or even the Nazis themselves"? Or is that an ass-backward result of a typo?

Didn't you mean to say "hate the Nazis, or even the Germans as a whole"?

The way you said it is like saying "I not only hate all Americans, but I hate serial killer Ted Bundy".

It makes more sense to say "I not only hate Ted Bundy, I hate all Americans!" because hating an infamous killer is the more expected thing, and hating the whole country the killer came from is the less expected thing.