300?

[caketastydelish]

What's your point? I was saying that the Persians drew their troops from the Middle East, and so their armies would probably look fairly Middle Eastern... I fail to see how the Aryan expansions- taking place thousands of years before the Persian Empire even formed- it relevant.


Not quite- "king" is merely a rough translation of the Greek term, it should not be assumed to be equivalent to the European monarchical tradition which draws on feudal origins. Their system was originally diarchic, but became diluted into a form of oligarchy with time. Hardly democratic- although neither was Athens- but hardly despotic, either.

Anyway, I said that what was important was the Spartan view. I'm not here to argue how was or who wasn't a slave. All I'm saying is that the Spartans viewed themselves as free citizens of Sparta and the Persians as slave-subjects of the King of Kings. That is what the film depicts.

Your first point dosen't make since. The vast majority of our troops in Iraq is white. They are not native american, even though they come from America. The modern sterio type of "middle eastern" is arabic, or semetic, or something simular. Yes, there troops were from the middle east, but there heritage laid elsewhere. Aryan expansion thousands of years before the Persian empire? The Persian Empire itself was FOUNDED by Aryans.

 

[caketastydelish]

What's your point? I was saying that the Persians drew their troops from the Middle East, and so their armies would probably look fairly Middle Eastern... I fail to see how the Aryan expansions- taking place thousands of years before the Persian Empire even formed- it relevant.


Not quite- "king" is merely a rough translation of the Greek term, it should not be assumed to be equivalent to the European monarchical tradition which draws on feudal origins. Their system was originally diarchic, but became diluted into a form of oligarchy with time. Hardly democratic- although neither was Athens- but hardly despotic, either.

Anyway, I said that what was important was the Spartan view. I'm not here to argue how was or who wasn't a slave. All I'm saying is that the Spartans viewed themselves as free citizens of Sparta and the Persians as slave-subjects of the King of Kings. That is what the film depicts.

Its practically the same thing as despotic, or monarchy if you will. The only difference is instead of one ruler, there is perhaps, five. But thats still .0000001 percent of the population at large. Not until the Roman empire was there any sort of a democracy. And even that was not a democracy, by today's standards.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your first point dosen't make since. The vast majority of our troops in Iraq is white. They are not native american, even though they come from America. The modern sterio type of "middle eastern" is arabic, or semetic, or something simular. Yes, there troops were from the middle east, but there heritage laid elsewhere. Aryan expansion thousands of years before the Persian empire? The Persian Empire itself was FOUNDED by Aryans.

Firstly, the modern "Arab" will only have a very small fraction of his ancestry originating in Arabia. The genetic makeup of the region is largely as it has been since prehistoric times; do you seriously think that a collection of nomadic desert tribes could significantly impact, let alone supplant, the population of the fertile crescent, one of the most populous regions on the planet for the entirety of the pre-modern era. The Arab expansions did not represent a major population shift such as the European migration period, and, even if it did, so what? The peoples living in the pre-Arabic Middle East would've looked much the same as the Arabs did, possibly with lighter skin tones. And, as the fertile crescent was the most populous region of the Persian Empire and the source of the bulk of their armies, their troops would reflect that.

What's more, much of the same applies to the Persians. The Aryan expansions, while representing a greater shift in the genetic makeup of a region, were still relatively minor, and there is little evidence to suggest that the "Aryan" Iranians would've looked radically different from other Middle Easterners anyway- they don't today, after all. Don't confuse "Aryan" in the Indo-Iranian sense with the Nordicist use of the term; the two have little in common.

Typically, historical population shifts do not represent a major change in the genetic origins of a region. Ethnicity may alter dramatically, but this is as much through self-identification as anything else. The invading group typically sets itself up as a ruling class, while the peasantry remains much the same as ever. Even in England, where the Germanic migrations had a greater effect than on anywhere else in Europe, the genetic makeup of the population is rarely more than 50% Germanic, and much of the remaining pre-Germanic makeup is pre-Celtic, dating back to the Neolithic. The European domination of the New World is an exception to an historical pattern, it is in no way an effective comparison for any pre-modern human migration. It represents an entirely unique set of circumstances that bear no comparison to those which occurred during either the Aryan or Arabic expansions.

And the Aryan expansions did indeed pre-date the Persian Empire, as evidenced by historically recorded pre-Persian Indo-Iranian nations such as the Median Empire (to which the Persian Empire was a successor state).

Its practically the same thing as despotic, or monarchy if you will. The only difference is instead of one ruler, there is perhaps, five. But thats still .0000001 percent of the population at large. Not until the Roman empire was there any sort of a democracy. And even that was not a democracy, by today's standards.

Well, that's an over-simplification, but, either way, it's irrelevant. As I have said several times now, the actual systems in place do not matter, what matters is how the Spartans regarded those systems. You can shout "Sparta was wrong" until your blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that the Spartans regarded themselves as free citizens and the Persians as the slaves of an autocrat. That was what the film was attempting to represent and how you feel about the political situation at the time is irrelevant.

 

[caketastydelish]

Firstly, the modern "Arab" will only have a very small fraction of his ancestry originating in Arabia. The genetic makeup of the region is largely as it has been since prehistoric times; do you seriously think that a collection of nomadic desert tribes could significantly impact, let alone supplant, the population of the fertile crescent, one of the most populous regions on the planet for the entirety of the pre-modern era. The Arab expansions did not represent a major population shift such as the European migration period, and, even if it did, so what? The peoples living in the pre-Arabic Middle East would've looked much the same as the Arabs did, possibly with lighter skin tones. And, as the fertile crescent was the most populous region of the Persian Empire and the source of the bulk of their armies, their troops would reflect that.

What's more, much of the same applies to the Persians. The Aryan expansions, while representing a greater shift in the genetic makeup of a region, were still relatively minor, and there is little evidence to suggest that the "Aryan" Iranians would've looked radically different from other Middle Easterners anyway- they don't today, after all. Don't confuse "Aryan" in the Indo-Iranian sense with the Nordicist use of the term; the two have little in common.

Typically, historical population shifts do not represent a major change in the genetic origins of a region. Ethnicity may alter dramatically, but this is as much through self-identification as anything else. The invading group typically sets itself up as a ruling class, while the peasantry remains much the same as ever. Even in England, where the Germanic migrations had a greater effect than on anywhere else in Europe, the genetic makeup of the population is rarely more than 50% Germanic, and much of the remaining pre-Germanic makeup is pre-Celtic, dating back to the Neolithic. The European domination of the New World is an exception to an historical pattern, it is in no way an effective comparison for any pre-modern human migration. It represents an entirely unique set of circumstances that bear no comparison to those which occurred during either the Aryan or Arabic expansions.

And the Aryan expansions did indeed pre-date the Persian Empire, as evidenced by historically recorded pre-Persian Indo-Iranian nations such as the Median Empire (to which the Persian Empire was a successor state).


Well, that's an over-simplification, but, either way, it's irrelevant. As I have said several times now, the actual systems in place do not matter, what matters is how the Spartans regarded those systems. You can shout "Sparta was wrong" until your blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that the Spartans regarded themselves as free citizens and the Persians as the slaves of an autocrat. That was what the film was attempting to represent and how you feel about the political situation at the time is irrelevant.

The reason Iranians today look so much like the Arabs is just because they were invaded by the Arabs and they intermarried. They looked completly different before the invasion. And the Persians did not "invade" Persia from someone else. They founded it, no one lived there before they did. Both the Europeans, and the Persians came from the same fifth root race. The aryan race. In modern times, there is a lot of diversity of skin tone within the aryan race. Why is that? Because some of the people got invaded by darker skinned people and some didn't.

Is it an accident that Spaniards have a darker complexion than other Europeans? They were invaded by the Moors. Thats why. Even though they were invaded by the Moors, the original "spaniard" is still in the gene pool, so you should refer them as Spaniards, not Moors. The Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians, in that same since.

Ok, so you have a point about the government. Basically what your saying was, the Spartans were completly wrong, but the movie was not reflecting what was right or wrong, but how the Spartans saw it. I'm ok with that, I was just seperating fact from fiction, thats all.

Did I ever say Aryan expansion didn't pre-date the Persian empire? It continued to expand into the new world, when the Europeans brought there Aryan blood into it. The Americans commited atrocities and killed millions of innocent native americans. And they settled America. But since Aryan expansion occured thousands and thousands of years before it started in America, does that make the American Aryan expansion "not count"? Anyhow, it dosen't matter either way because the Persians did not take the Persian land from someone else. They were the first ones there. Before the Persians were in Persia, no one was. Before the Germanic people were in England, there were other people in England so you can't make that comparison.

for more information about Persia, or how they were indeed Aryan, try this link: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm

 

[Wilphe]

I love watching people judge the Greeks as not coming up to modern standards of demoocracy when as the people who invented the concept they should be presumed to know what it meant...

Probably no contempory society would pass muster under their definition.

 

[scy12]

I am also interested at watching people judge the Greeks as a whole when it's different Greek city was a world on it's own.

The Spartans did consider there selfs superior to Persians and freer than them so that part of the film is not unhistorical. And they where probably right.

And their society as a rule did have a bigger respect for bravery and fighting in ways that we today would consider stupid. They also had several Rhetors and Politicans which made things interesting.

If that is a flaw of Spartan society I don't see why we should not observe it in interpretation of it. However 300 was not a serious one at that.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am also interested at watching people judge the Greeks as a whole when it's different Greek city was a world on it's own.

The Spartans did consider there selfs superior to Persians and freer than them so that part of the film is not unhistorical. And they where probably right.

And their society as a rule did have a bigger respect for bravery and fighting in ways that we today would consider stupid. They also had several Rhetors and Politicans which made things interesting.

If that is a flaw of Spartan society I don't see why we should not observe it in interpretation of it. However 300 was not a serious one at that.

"The Spartans did consider there selfs superior to Persians and freer than them so that part of the film is not unhistorical. And they where probably right."

I won't even argue with you any more. I'll let those comments stand for themselves.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The reason Iranians today look so much like the Arabs is just because they were invaded by the Arabs and they intermarried. They looked completly different before the invasion. And the Persians did not "invade" Persia from someone else. They founded it, no one lived there before they did. Both the Europeans, and the Persians came from the same fifth root race. The aryan race. In modern times, there is a lot of diversity of skin tone within the aryan race. Why is that? Because some of the people got invaded by darker skinned people and some didn't.

Aryan is not a race. It is a BS concept birthed in 19th Century Social Darwinism.

Is it an accident that Spaniards have a darker complexion than other Europeans? They were invaded by the Moors. Thats why. Even though they were invaded by the Moors, the original "spaniard" is still in the gene pool, so you should refer them as Spaniards, not Moors. The Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians, in that same since.

Spaniards' skin is darker because they live in a much warmer, sunnier climate than their Frankish neighbors to the north, not because they were invaded by the Muslims. After all, the Visigoths ruled the area for a period of time comparable to Muslim rule, why do the Spanish not resemble Germans, then?

Did I ever say Aryan expansion didn't pre-date the Persian empire? It continued to expand into the new world, when the Europeans brought there Aryan blood into it.

LOL What?

The Americans commited atrocities and killed millions of innocent native americans. And they settled America.

Whoa, slow down there partner. Surely you realize that 90% of Native American deaths resulted from epidemic European diseases and not warfare.

But since Aryan expansion occured thousands and thousands of years before it started in America, does that make the American Aryan expansion "not count"?

Huh?

Anyhow, it dosen't matter either way because the Persians did not take the Persian land from someone else. They were the first ones there. Before the Persians were in Persia, no one was.

The Zayandeh Rud civilization, Ganj Dareh of Neolithic times were there first, as were the Elamites, rivals of the Sumerians. Paleolithic tribes predated these as well.

Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians came later, but all populated the Iranian plateau. There is no such thing as a "Persian" race.

Before the Germanic people were in England, there were other people in England so you can't make that comparison.

Yes you can, for reasons stated above.

for more information about Persia, or how they were indeed Aryan, try this link: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm

Wow, reading that, it was like reading your posts all over again! I think someone has been bitten by the bias bug.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, Cheezy covered most of the points that needed making, but, frankly, after this little gem...

Both the Europeans, and the Persians came from the same fifth root race. The aryan race.

...I don't think it was worth his time. Anyone who brings up that sort of bizarre and outdated pseudo-historical rubbish is two steps from unleashing a godawful torrent of Hyperborean nonsense, and I don't think anyone here can be arsed to try and deal with that.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, Cheezy covered most of the points that needed making, but, frankly, after this little gem...

...I don't think it was worth his time. Anyone who brings up that sort of bizarre and outdated pseudo-historical rubbish is two steps from unleashing a godawful torrent of Hyperborean nonsense, and I don't think anyone here can be arsed to try and deal with that.

Where is your God now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Where is your God now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race

Did you seriously cite someone who says the "root races" lived in Atlantis, Lemuria, and Hyperborea? Thanks for ending this thread faster than I ever could have.

 

[caketastydelish]

Aryan is not a race. It is a BS concept birthed in 19th Century Social Darwinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race I can back up my arguments with sources. Can you?

Spaniards' skin is darker because they live in a much warmer, sunnier climate than their Frankish neighbors to the north, not because they were invaded by the Muslims. After all, the Visigoths ruled the area for a period of time comparable to Muslim rule, why do the Spanish not resemble Germans, then?

People not northern Spain have a lighter complexion than the lower part of Spain. Northern Spain was NOT under Moorish occupation, thats why. Actually Spain is an extremly diverse place. The Muslems were in Spain for about 800 years. They were in Spain longer than Europeans have been in the Americas! Don't kid yourself, they changed up the gene pool a bit. Not to mention, the darker skin tone is dominant over lighter skin (I'm not saying darker skinned people are racially superior, but I'm saying it is the dominant gene, you know what I mean)




LOL What?

I can say "lol what?" just as much as you can.

Whoa, slow down there partner. Surely you realize that 90% of Native American deaths resulted from epidemic European diseases and not warfare.

True, but had the Europeans not came they wouldn't have got those diseases.


Huh?



The Zayandeh Rud civilization, Ganj Dareh of Neolithic times were there first, as were the Elamites, rivals of the Sumerians. Paleolithic tribes predated these as well.



Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians came later, but all populated the Iranian plateau. There is no such thing as a "Persian" race.

watch this starting at 3:44 or so, and you'll find I'm correct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aukC8GBEsU

Yes you can, for reasons stated above.

No you can't, for reasons stated above.

Wow, reading that, it was like reading your posts all over again! I think someone has been bitten by the bias bug.

"that" was counter-bias. Your far more biased yourself.

 

[caketastydelish]

Did you seriously cite someone who says the "root races" lived in Atlantis, Lemuria, and Hyperborea? Thanks for ending this thread faster than I ever could have.

The information from THAT quote is not what I'm citing. Never the less, there is FAR more evidence that they were indeed aryan than weren't. As a matter of fact, "Darius the Great, King of Persia (521–486 BC), in an inscription in Naqsh-e Rustam (near Shiraz in present-day Iran), proclaims: "I am Darius the great King… A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

I keep giving things to back up my argument, you guys just say whatever you want and I have to "believe" it, just because you said so, yet whenever I say something, even if I back it up, you still won't believe it. If you guys are going to be that dogmatic when in discussions, I will no longer discuss with you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"that" was counter-bias. Your far more biased yourself.

I am only biased towards the truth. If you wish to contest specific passages, quote them and respond as such.

The information from THAT quote is not what I'm citing.

You linked to it, and issued a direct challenge after that. How were you NOT citing it? Admit it , your source is complete bunk, as is your outdated, racist ideology, and we can end this already.

Never the less, there is FAR more evidence that they were indeed aryan than weren't. As a matter of fact, "Darius the Great, King of Persia (521–486 BC), in an inscription in Naqsh-e Rustam (near Shiraz in present-day Iran), proclaims: "I am Darius the great King… A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Le sigh. Here, I'll quote your own article for you, and show why it doesn't say what you think it says.

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable".[1][2] The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians[citation needed]. Since, in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole[citation needed].

In Europe, the concept of an Aryan race became influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as linguists and ethnologists argued that speakers of these Indo-European languages constitute a distinctive race, descended from an ancient people, who were referred to as the "primitive Aryans", but are now known as Proto-Indo-Europeans

.

The "Aryan race" was a term used in the early 20th century by European racial theorists who believed strongly in the division of humanity into biologically distinct races with differing characteristics. Such writers believed that the Proto-Indo-Europeans constituted a specific race that had expanded across parts of Europe, Iran and small parts of northern India. This usage tends to merge the Sanskrit meaning of "noble" or "elevated" with the idea of distinctive behavioral and ancestral ethnicity marked by language distribution.

Taken from your provided wiki page. Not that wikipedia is an authoritative citation at any rate.

I keep giving things to back up my argument, you guys just say whatever you want and I have to "believe" it, just because you said so, yet whenever I say something, even if I back it up, you still won't believe it.

There is a difference between providing a source, and providing proof. I can say "Jews are evil" and cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but that doesn't mean that it's true. Just because you link to something that sort of says what you are saying doesn't mean that it's correct or true. So yes, we will continue to contest your archaic racial theories so long as you provide bunk evidence to back it up.

If you guys are going to be that dogmatic when in discussions, I will no longer discuss with you.

My, how grown up of you.

 

[Traitorfish]

Where is your God now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race

Yeah... That was pretty much exactly what I was talking about. I'm aware of that bizarre theory (hence my reference to Hyperborea...?), and, as Cheezy mentioned, it's assertions that humanity evolution can be traced through a number of non-existent civilisations situated on fictional continents mean that I just don't think that it has the slightest grounding in reality. It makes a good origin story for Hellboy, but that's about as far as it's usefulness extends...

 

[scy12]

As the name Indoeuropean was brought up i must shout BS(Bullsomething) on it.

 

[Traitorfish]

As the name Indoeuropean was brought up i must shout BS(Bullsomething) on it.

"Indo-European" isn't bulls**t, it's a legitimate linguistic family. The bullsh**t is the equivalence of this language family to a fictional "Aryan race".

 

[scy12]

The . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . is the equivalence of this language family and a fictional "Aryan race".

I agree that everything about The Aryan concept is massive . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I also agree that Aryan . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . is more Bulshit than Indo-European assumptions which we have a right to make. We don't have a right to say that those assumptions are something else which is what many had done.

"Indo-European" isn't . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., it's a legitimate linguistic family

Indo-European theories are illegimate assumptions about language. It is not a conclusive theory where the evidence presented provide as a truthful conclusion. There are assumptions with some truth in them that once may provide us with a conclusions on these issues but not today and so they should be treated as such.

 

[Mirc]

"Indo-European" isn't bulls**t, it's a legitimate linguistic family. The bullsh**t is the equivalence of this language family to a fictional "Aryan race".

QFT. That pretty much sums up my opinion of it.

Indo-European theories are illegimate assumptions about language. It is not a conclusive theory where the evidence presented provide as a truthful conclusion. There are assumptions with some truth in them that once may provide us with a conclusions on these issues but not today and so they should be treated as such.

I haven't seen yet anyone seriously opposing an Indo-European language family. I'm afraid the burden of proof is not on those who believe in it, since they have exposed long ago the large amount of proof that they had.

 

[scy12]

QFT. That pretty much sums up my opinion of it.



I haven't seen yet anyone seriously opposing an Indo-European language family. I'm afraid the burden of proof is not on those who believe in it, since they have exposed long ago the large amount of proof that they had.

??? Maybe you can convince an unbeliever if you expose once again the proof of one single IndoEuropean language. With my understanding there is much proof of several similarities with all languages that don't tell me much. Also the Indoeuropean theories don't have only to do with language but several other assumptions regarding the prehistory of humanity in those regions.

Proving one of them does not prove the other and so i rightfully claim that their role into our conscience is vastly overrated . But i do believe they should stay and be examined more and more. I just see people getting overly dogmatic over them , but i guess that is indeed the repeating history.