Of Empires and Conquerors

____no5 said:
I'm happy to hear this from you

Did you think I support nazi ideology because I'm a German?  :huh:

...but even in the very modern bibliography this indoeuropean hypothesis (which bothers me terribly) is always here, as something self-evident

Err... now you're confusing things: The nazi "Aryans" and the Indo-Europeans have virtually nothing to do with each other.
The Indo-Europeans did and do exist. That is proven. It is proven by language studies, by ethnology and all the likes... they just never were a "tribe". They occupied most of Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe and a big chunk of India during the 3d and 2nd millennia BC.
And yes, the term "Aryan" originates from Indo-European languages, and is, as a matter of fact, still in use today in Iran and India.

Nowadays, Indo-Iranian is more a language tree than anything else, just like Semitic (Hebrew, Arab, Aramaean and Berber are Semitic languages) or Bantu (Congolese, Zulu, Khoisan or Luanda belong to this), but it originates from such migrations. In my opinion this has very little to do with "race", and certainly nothing with "superiority" or "inferiority", but it is quite undisputable that this is how it is.

But, once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with nazi idea of the tall, blonde, blue-eyed "Aryan" and should not be confused.
 
Perun said:
Did you think I support nazi ideology because I'm a German?  :huh:

Err... now you're confusing things: The nazi "Aryans" and the Indo-Europeans have virtually nothing to do with each other.
The Indo-Europeans did and do exist. That is proven. It is proven by language studies, by ethnology and all the likes... they just never were a "tribe". They occupied most of Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe and a big chunk of India during the 3d and 2nd millennia BC.
And yes, the term "Aryan" originates from Indo-European languages, and is, as a matter of fact, still in use today in Iran and India.

the studies of the languages it goes less far in the timeline than the existance of an hypothetic tribe.....
I know it's not 100% the same Aryans and Indoeuropeans
but the consideration of a family of languages leeds unconsciously to the mind of a superior tribe

so I'm against the easy use even of term Indoeuropean in historic books....
something that unfortunately happens a lot

as you very well said this comes from the studies of other sciences, and mostly languages studies
you see what I mean ?
 
Urizen said:
I wouldn't call you a dumb-fuck for not caring about politics (but ancient Greeks would ::). As I explained I wasn't talking about people, like the Americans say ' the average Joe'. You forgot China and Iran, and people in the US certainly know more than countries you listed, and if the majority doesn't then that's just sad, and shows just what a good job CNN and others have done to keep Americans obedient. And the uncaring of Americans is one of the world's major problems. You don't care that you are producing the biggest amount of pollution, and don't give a damn about Kyoto agreement. It's 'we're the best, and fuck the rest' kind of attitude right?

You see someone getting cocky out in the middle east, then think 'better safe than sorry' , get there, fuck them up, and get the oil, while conserving your own resources, as long as you can get someone elses. Good ol' American common sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm well avare it's just 'do what you gotta do'.  -_-

And just for the record, I didn't meant anything bad about Switzerland and Holland. Those countries are well developed now mostly because they didn't had the unfortune to be in that many wars, which enabled them to prosper.

Just for the record I am not an "American" aka U.S citizen, and I meant that the majority of ALL people that is of the 6 plus billion on the planet could care less about politics. It's not their fault, it is the structure of society. I can guarantee you that the peasant farmer in China or the Mexican orange picker in Florida could care less if Apple and Microsoft strike a deal or if the U.S owes trillions of dollars to China.
 
____no5 said:
the studies of the languages it goes less far in the timeline than the existance of an hypothetic tribe.....
I know it's not 100% the same Aryans and Indoeuropeans
but the consideration of a family of languages leeds unconsciously to the mind of a superior tribe

so I'm against the easy use even of term Indoeuropean in historic books....
something that unfortunately happens a lot

as you very well said this comes from the studies of other sciences, and mostly languages studies
you see what I mean ?


Maybe you should read these articles first before you fool around with ignorant theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90017

E.g. Italian and French languages are subdivisions of the Indo-European language tree, like it or not.
See:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90059
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90076

Damn what eduction do they give in Italy or wherever you're from ?
 
I'm with you, Forostar, though I'd like to put in some diversity, since Wikipedia is not always the most credible of all sources:

http://www.cord.edu/faculty/sprunger/e315/i-e.htm
http://www.indo-european.org/
http://www.danshort.com/ie/
http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... ie-lg.html
http://www.ielanguages.com/
http://vip.latnet.lv/hss/loze.htm
http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/IEFamily.html
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/oe-ie.html
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/indoeuropean.html
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90017
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/home.html
http://www.indo-european.org/page3.html
http://www.jies.org/
http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/majors/ineu.html
http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/aakkl/englis ... /index.htm
http://www.genling.nw.ru/Eng/study/sSpecial1.htm
http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/pgmrq/indo.asp


I'll sum it up right here: Most of these links direct to academic websites, most of those by institutes of a subject called "Indo-European Studies". Some explain the theory (more of a proven fact, as I said) of the Indo-European language tree, and a possible "people" behind them (although details of that, as with anything academic, are of course disputed), others are simply the homepages of the institutes. I wonder if no5 can find one single academic word to back up his... idea.

In any case, I would like to warn anybody reading this thread that no5 is challenging a proven scientific fact, and that most questions you might have on it will be answered in the links above.

By the way...

but the consideration of a family of languages leeds unconsciously to the mind of a superior tribe

This doesn't make sense to me at all.
 
there is a problem here, and as you are 2 against me, it's obvious that is my problem

@Forostar : of course and I know the existance of the Indoeuropean language tree

@Perun : the question (with alternative words so to can make sence) : "the existance of a language tree doesn't suppose the existance of a primitive tribe ?"*

if it does suppose so, it's only an hypothesis and not history until we find evidences (archaeological findings) ...only then we can speak for this primitive tribe
I hope I made myself clear this time


here is the (same) question as in my previous post (which didn't made any sence to you)
* the consideration of a family of languages leeds unconsciously to the mind of a superior tribe
 
____no5 said:
@Perun : the question (with alternative words so to can make sence) : "the existance of a language tree doesn't suppose the existance of a primitive tribe ?"*

if it does suppose so, it's only an hypothesis and not history until we find evidences (archaeological findings) ...only then we can speak for this primitive tribe
I hope I made myself clear

You did make yourself clear from the beginning on, but there is evidence-- writings, inscriptions, languages... careful research has led to the conclusion that the Indo-European languages have the same origin. I don't quite see where the problem is. People who resided from the Caucasus region started migrating to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and from there to India, the Middle East and the rest of Europe- is that so hard to believe? It's what has been happening all the time in history. Think of the Americans, Bantu, Huns, the Great Migration, hell, the European colonisation of America and Australia! Common languages and cultures were spread, or why do you think people in Latin America speak, well, Latin languages? Did they just make them up and in an astonishing accident, they were identical to Spanish and Portuguese?

You are asking for archaeological evidence. Well, what exactly do you want? An inscription from Dorian Greece saying: "This is an inscription by Indo-European people. We are related to those in Spain and those in Iran?
Tell you something: The Indo-Europeans were horse nomads. This means they were basically living in the Stone Age until some of the individual groups started developing urban civilisations. This means all archaeological evidence we can find is tombs and, with a bit of luck, the odd depot. The problem is that even neighbouring cultures tend to have completely different burial rites, this even occurs in non-nomadic cultures. As a matter of fact, it is even impossible to determine a culture- the term is used by archaeologists to define certain geographical and chronological groups that more or less differ from others. With an archaeological context without any epigraphic source, there is virtually nothing that can be said about the people: We don't know what they looked like, we don't know what language they spoke, we don't know what gods they believed in or what crazy ideas they may have had. So what proof are you looking for, exactly?

here is the question in my previous post (which didn't made any sence to you)
* the consideration of a family of languages leeds unconsciously to the mind of a superior tribe

It still doesn't make sense to me  :huh:
 
evidences for the affinity between these people exist.

but I want to hear your opinion in this.
is it historicaly corect to speak
and build theories around
the existance of a tribe
with exclusively non direct evidences?

I can speak for a tribe if I find a hammer or a spoon made by it
But am I alloweded to speak for a tribe just because I found 10 other tribes that
lived many years ago, and they have similarities in their languages /mythgologies ?

I'm not telling, I'm asking
 
____no5 said:
but I want to hear your opinion in this.
is it historicaly corect to speak
and build theories around
the existance of a tribe
with exclusively non direct evidences?

My opinion: If these indirect evidences point out only one possibility, yes. If there is any reason for doubt, these reasons should be examined.

I can speak for a tribe if I find a hammer or a spoon made by it

Not really. You can only tell that there were people who made it. You can tell a tribe only if there is more evidence; usually, in shape of language (epigraphic sources) or clear cultural finds (cult objects, certain individual dresscodes, etc).

But am I alloweded to speak for a tribe just because I found 10 other tribes that
lived many years ago, and they have similarities in their languages /mythgologies ?

Yes, if the similarities are so striking that there is no other possible explanation for it.
For example, the stories of Heracles and Krishna are quite similar in their basic structure. Krishna started appearing in Indian mythology in the early 1st century BC (at which time the Arya more or less assimilated to Indian culture), Heracles appears in Greece during the Dark Ages, which is when the Dorians appeared also. Of course, it could simply be that the story got transfered from India to Greece by oral tradition, but how come there is no trace of this character in Mesopotamia or Anatolia at that time (both areas with literate cultures)? It could be that both stories simply bear these similarities by coincidence... but if we have similar stories appearing in areas where people live who speak similar languages, both of which were not indigenous in these areas, and both having migrated from roughly the same area -the Dorians coming from the northeast, the Arya from the northwest: if you draw lines, both will eventually meet somewhere in Central Asia- then the conclusion is practically offering itself.
 
____no5 said:
evidences for the affinity between these people exist.

but I want to hear your opinion in this.
is it historicaly corect to speak
and build theories around
the existance of a tribe
with exclusively non direct evidences?

I can speak for a tribe if I find a hammer or a spoon made by it
But am I alloweded to speak for a tribe just because I found 10 other tribes that
lived many years ago, and they have similarities in their languages /mythgologies ?

I'm not telling, I'm asking

I understand your point now a bit better. I guess this has to do with comparing languages, following tribal movements, basically a lot of research (including archeology). Reconstruction, deduction...

president_bush.jpg


How did the whole idea, how languages can be related, start?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Europ ... dies  -->

The existence of the Proto-Indo-Europeans has been inferred by comparative linguistics. The discovery of the genetic relationship of the various Indo-European languages goes back to William Jones, a British judge in India, who in 1782 observed, that,

"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists."
Sir William's greatest insight, by no means fully grasped at first, was that "related languages" (sometimes called "genetically related languages") used to be a single language. At first, the various languages that we now call Indo-European were simply compared, with no attempt at reconstruction. A review of the IEL as a belief system presents William Jones [1] as a proselytizer and IEL 'laws' as non-falsifiable [2]. Select quotes [3] from William Jones' discourses are presented to validate this criticism. In 1814 the young Dane Rasmus Christian Rask (he was in his teens) submitted an entry to an essay contest on Icelandic history, in which he concluded that the Germanic languages were (as we would put it) in the same language family as Greek, Latin, Slavic, and Lithuanian. He was in doubt about Old Irish, eventually concluding that it did not belong with the others (he later changed his mind), and further decided that Finnish and Hungarian were related but in a different family, and that "Greenlandic" (Kalaallisut) represented yet a third. He was unfamiliar with Sanskrit at the time, but later not only learned that language but published some of the earliest work in ancient Iranian languages. August Schleicher was the first scholar to compose a tentative text in the extinct common source Jones had predicted (see: Schleicher's fable). The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) represents, by definition, the common language of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. In the 20th century, great progress was made due to the discovery of more language material belonging to the Indo-European family, and by advances in comparative linguistics, by scholars such as Ferdinand de Saussure. Purely linguistic research was assisted by attempts to reconstruct the culture and religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans by scholars such as Georges Dumézil, as well as by archaeology (e. g. Marija Gimbutas, Colin Renfrew) and genetics (e. g. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza).
 
Perun said:
Yes, if the similarities are so striking that there is no other possible explanation for it.
For example, the stories of Heracles and Krishna are quite similar in their basic structure. Krishna started appearing in Indian mythology in the early 1st century BC (at which time the Arya more or less assimilated to Indian culture), Heracles appears in Greece during the Dark Ages, which is when the Dorians appeared also. Of course, it could simply be that the story got transfered from India to Greece by oral tradition, but how come there is no trace of this character in Mesopotamia or Anatolia at that time (both areas with literate cultures)? It could be that both stories simply bear these similarities by coincidence... but if we have similar stories appearing in areas where people live who speak similar languages, both of which were not indigenous in these areas, and both having migrated from roughly the same area -the Dorians coming from the northeast, the Arya from the northwest: if you draw lines, both will eventually meet somewhere in Central Asia- then the conclusion is practically offering itself.

what about Gilgamesh ?
....Dorians appeared the same time with the sea people, or some 100 years after

@Forostar : I'm reading your post now and I answer you in a modified post....

I read directly the wiki's text, I saw some interesting things inside
 
____no5 said:
what about Gilgamesh ?

The Gilgamesh Epic, although containing some similar elements, is basically a different story than those of Krishna and Heracles, and has more in common with some stories of the Old Testament.

....Dorians appeared the same time with the sea people, or some 100 years after

Greek Dark Ages, as I said. Sparta was founded in the mid-10th Century BC and received its Dorian element shortly thereafter.
 
Perun said:
Greek Dark Ages, as I said. Sparta was founded in the mid-10th Century BC and received its Dorian element shortly thereafter.

Sparta was refered by Homer as one of the principal cities in the war of Troy, so it had to be a bit more ancient than this....
so maybe it was a sum of smaller cities before 10th century, something like Iran's Ispahan in 12 century

we know also the existance of a very ancient cult of Sparta, this of Yakinthus, a dying /reborn god like Adonis...
after the invasion of Dorians the god renamed as "Yakinthus Apollo"

                                    [...]

it would be interesting to find what date of ancient Greek calender correspond to ours 20th of July 
 
____no5 said:
Sparta was refered by Homer as one of the principal cities in the war of Troy, so it had to be a bit more ancient than this....

Homer lived in the 8th/7th century BC; his account of the Trojan War (the traditional date of which is placed in the 13th century BC) is a distortion of history. It is not to be taken at face value.

it would be interesting to find what date of ancient Greek calender correspond to ours 20th of July

The month is called Hekatombaion in the Ionian-Attic calendar, in Sparta it was most probably Hyachinthios, though I can't tell you the exact day.
 
Perun said:
Homer lived in the 8th/7th century BC; his account of the Trojan War (the traditional date of which is placed in the 13th century BC) is a distortion of history. It is not to be taken at face value.

I know.....but yet all the other cities he is refer to did exist (with archaelogical evidences) so why not Sparta ?
I remind you that before Sleeman scientists believed Troyan war as a fairy-tale

Perun said:
The month is called Hekatombaion in the Ionian-Attic calendar, in Sparta it was most probably Hyachinthios, though I can't tell you the exact day.

Hyachinthios !! see my recent post : "Yakinthus Apollo" it's exactly the same name !!  B)
 
____no5 said:
I know.....but yet all the other cities he is refer to did exist (with archaelogical evidences) so why not Sparta ?
I remind you that before Sleeman scientists believed Troyan war as a fairy-tale

Yes, the other cities did exist- they also existed when Homer lived. I'll look it up for you when I'm home if you want, but it is a fact that Sparta did not exist before 960.

And let's not forget that what exactly Homer described is disputed- whether he believed to describe a historical event the way it happened, or if he described a historical event using contemporary political reality (I just remind you of paintings showing Alexander the Great in renaissance style clothing) or if the whole Illiad is to be set in or around Homers time in the first place. The traditional date of 12-something BC was calculated by Roman historians using other mythological dates, such as the founding of Rome (753 BC) or the start of the Roman Republic (509 BC), all of which have been more or less disproven by modern scholars.
 
Perun said:
Yes, the other cities did exist- they also existed when Homer lived. I'll look it up for you when I'm home if you want, but it is a fact that Sparta did not exist before 960.

yes do it please....
I find more and more possible to be like you say, though
Before it could had another name or it could be another city near to Sparta or a total of cities
the existance of the cult of Yakinthus there shows us that the region was civilized at least from the Minoan times thus ~2000 BC

Perun said:
And let's not forget that what exactly Homer described is disputed- whether he believed to describe a historical event the way it happened, or if he described a historical event using contemporary political reality

both of them I think, it is a mix of new and more ancient elements

Perun said:
(I just remind you of paintings showing Alexander the Great in renaissance style clothing) or if the whole Illiad is to be set in or around Homers time in the first place. The traditional date of 12-something BC was calculated by Roman historians using other mythological dates, such as the founding of Rome (753 BC) or the start of the Roman Republic (509 BC), all of which have been more or less disproven by modern scholars.

nice example !! well don't go very far, in Iliade we have a burning of the dead as it is more than certain that in time of Troyan war the dead was buried
also in Iliade we have the first discription of "olympic games" (rhapsody 23)....and here I would like to point out that the founding of Rome and the founding of Olympic games* were two events very close chronologicaly....had you ever notice that ? what could it mean ?

*the participation to the Olympic games was a proof of someone's 100% Greek origine. This event is so a milestone to the conscience as a nation
 
Since this popped up in another thread, I will explain the matter of Macedonia here, so those who don't know about it get a basic reference.

There is a people in the Balkans who call themselves Macedonians and their country Macedonia. They are a Slavic people and used to be part of Yugoslavia, and gained independence for the first time in their history in 1992, when Yugoslavia broke up. The Slavs wandered into the Balkans during the past 1500 years.

Neighboring that country, there also is a territory in northern Greece called Macedonia, and has been known by that name for nearly three thousand years now. The inhabitants of this territory are and have always been Greek.

Now, when those whom I shall call the "Slavic Macedonians" (as opposed to the "Greek Macedonians") became independent, they wanted to call their newly independent state "Macedonia", because that was also the name of their administrative district (dubbed "Republic") in Yugoslavia. Naturally, this didn't sit well with the Greek Macedonians, who consider their home the one and only Macedonia. What also fuelled the fire was the Slavic Macedonian usage of Greek Macedonian national symbols, most of all the Star of Vergina -a symbol that has been in use by the Greek Macedonians since antiquity- on their flag. As a temporary settlement, the United Nations officially accepted this new state with the descriptive name of the "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia"- an inarguable fact, as the country was called "Macedonia" in Yugoslavia.

Since this is a very long and unhandy name, most people use one of two variations, either referring to the country as "FYROM" or as "Macedonia". The latter was used by US president Bush when he visited the country a few years ago, and of course, he pulled the anger of the Greeks on him. That's right- the Greeks.

The "Macedonia is Greek" slogan is not only used by Greek Macedonians, but by all Greeks. While there certainly is some upright solidarity in there, there is a catch- Greek Macedonia was the home of Alexander the Great, Greek national hero.

Since most historians refer to Alexander's empire as the Macedonian one, this has confused many people and led them to ask whether Alexander was Greek or Macedonian. This is where things start to become really ugly.

The Greeks of course, and rightly, say Alexander was Greek- and usually add the suffix "Macedonia is Greek". The Slavic Macedonians have a bit of a problem, however. As I stated earlier, they did not have much of a glorious past, and now have an independent political entity for the first time in their history. As with most people on the Balkans, they are very nationalistic, but without a glorious past to look back on like everybody else, a few have started saying- Alexander was Macedonian, meaning Slavic Macedonian. Or, if they are confronted with the fact that the Slavs simply did not live anywhere close to the Balkans when Alexander lived, say that the Macedonians were actually Illyrian, the Illyrians being considered the ancestors of the Slavs on the Balkans (don't ask me how that works). The Slavic Macedonian usage of Greek Macedonian symbols, as described above, does not make things easier.

This has led to even more absurd claims, including one I once heard by a Serb, claiming that Alexander the Great was Serb, because Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia, which, according to him, was basically Greater Serbia.

However, Greek hatred towards the Slavic Macedonians led them to ask whether these are actually a real people. Some have started claiming that the Macedonian language is actually a dialect of Bulgarian, the Slavic Macedonians thus actually being Bulgarian- a claim of course happily supported by the Bulgarians. The problem only is that the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages are as related to each other as Dutch and German or Spanish and Portuguese- meaning fairly similar, and understandable to a certain degree by both sides, at least if read but different languages with different vocabulary, grammar and the likes.

To sum it up, the basic problems are:

-Slavic Macedonians use Greek names, symbols and, to a degree, history to form their identity
-The Greeks are pissed off because these happen to be some of the most glorious elements of their culture
  ->The Slavic Macedonians are hated by the Greeks and Bulgarians (and Albanians, but for a different reason)

So, if you ever come across this discussion on a board you post at (and, as I stated elsewhere, it popped up in every board I ever posted at), keep the above in mind- and ignore the discussion. There are Greeks, Bulgarians and Slavic Macedonians who actually do search the web for these discussions and make troll posts there (often bumping threads which are several years old), which are better off ignored. I wouldn't be too surprised if one appeared in this thread as well.


Now, to answer to the above post:

Sparta was founded in ~950 BC, but incorporated and older city called Amyklai in its polis. However, it was never considered the same city.
 
!!!!!
what has to do the above post here ?
well, you spoke like a Greek, but what I know after discussions with FYR Macedonians is that they don't consider themselfs Slavs, nor their language a Slavic language (they learn this at schools)

for them, Alexander was speaking "their language" and they are his descendants....

Herodote declare clearly that Macedonians were Greek, but Herodote....

until now -as far as I know- we have find one and only text written in ancient Macedonian language (a mariage wish popular text), which is in a Doric dialect thus Greek.....but we wait to find another text to can say with certainity that Macedonians were speaking Greek (I'm not speaking for the "official" language of the empire but the language that was speaking from the people -this is that counts)

Until the day we find a second Macedonian text, the proofs that Macedonians were rather "Greek" are :
1) they had Greek (Dorian) names (Macedonia, Cleopatre, Thessalonic, Alexander, Philippe, Carterus, Hefestion (hi Perun), Perdikas etc)
2) they had Greek gods
3) the montagne of Olympus is cited in their land (in fact is a reference since then a geo-limit to that land)

and most important of all :
4) they could participate in Olympic games

as far as I know, there is a project suported by Americans which is not still valid, but when it will be valid (if it will be) the Greek state will not have the right to use the word Macedonia in its official international papers

conclusion : well I don't know what to believe, it would be easy if it was prooven that FYR Macedonian language was a Slavic one, but as far as I know, this is disputed
 
Back
Top