Got fucked by alexander

The Parni are to Persians what the Scottish are to the English you fucking retard. They were part of the Dahae tribal confederations and not Scythians at all.

>got fucked by Alexander
Reigned only 10 years.
>by his successors
Seleucids lost control of the Iranian heartlands in less then 70 years and the Arsacids wiped them out until neither Rome nor Parthia wanted them and they were reduced to a rump state of a handful of cities.
>got fucked by Parthians
They aren't a Scythian tribe and are Iranian who adopted Persian culture and administrators and most of their armies were made up of Persian horsemen and archers.
>got fucked by Romans
Not really.
>got fucked by Byzantines
Not really. And the Byzantines lost the last three wars before the 602-629 AD final war.
>got fucked by Hephtalites
The same White Huns who the Sassanids literally exterminated? Why not mention Attila's Huns as well who lost two armies attempting to invade from the Caucasus and moved onto the Roman Empires because the Sassanids were far too dangerous to them?
>got raped eternally by Arabs
/pol/ shit, also Iranian intermezzo period decisively destroyed the Arab's yolk on the Middle East even before the Turks started appearing to fuck the Abbassids shit up. Same Abbassids also were heavily dependent on the Persians as administrators, engineers, and writers.
>got fucked by Turkic tribes
Seljuks and Khawarmians each didnt even last two centuries.
>got fucked by Mongols twice
You mean once. Second Mongol invasion got literally ass-raped by the Khwaramians who were a Turkic Persianized dynasty who destroyed a second Mongol army in Eastern Greater Iran/Khorasan.
>got assravaged by Ottomans
Never happened. Safavids matched the Ottomans and were their primary rival in the Middle East and Western Asia, and destroyed several attempts to invade or annex Iranian territory. Nader/Nadir Shah also had the Ottomans and Russians both shitting their pants. So you're full of shit here as well.

(You)

>Second Mongol invasion got literally ass-raped by the Khwaramians who were a Turkic Persianized dynasty who destroyed a second Mongol army in Eastern Greater Iran/Khorasan.
What the fuck are you talking about?

>Never happened. Safavids matched the Ottomans
They permanently lost Iraq to them, which is pretty important.

They aren't Scythians. There's zero evidence for it aside from the fact they were semi-nomadic and spoke an Eastern Iranian language that is not directly related to any known dialects or languages the Scythians or the Sarmatians used.

>/out/

>After the Mongol campaign in Khurasan, the Shah's army was broken. Jalal al-Din, who took power after his father's death, began assembling the remnants of the Khwarezmid army in the south, in the area of Afghanistan. >Genghis had dispatched forces to hunt down the gathering army under Jalal al-Din, and the two sides met in the spring of 1221 at the town of Parwan. The engagement was a humiliating defeat for the Mongol forces.

>They permanently lost Iraq to them
That was when the Safavid dynasty was declining. The majority of wars perpetuated by the Ottomans were an attempt to destablize and overthrow the Safavids and destroy them, which they routinely failed at.

>tfw Azeris will be the Majority in Iran in a couple of decades
TURKED
U
R
K
E
D

Parni in the tongue of the Scythians meant outcast so they were Scythian tribes that migrated southwards. Daehe were also a Scythian people.

Alexander's empire barely last a second compared to the Achaemenid's empire and was fragmented and destroyed the struggle of his successors once the Diodachi went down. In fact you can say the Persians have the last laugh because the Greek/Macedonian success was short lived and all it did was perpetuate the rise of Rome at the expense of the Greek world.
>Arabs
They didn't even manage to conqueror the entirety of Iranian territory. All the areas of mountainous eastern and northern Iran remained independent and the best the Caliphates could hope for was to have the independent Persian and Iranian principalities and feifdoms recognize their suzerainty. There are even medieval Arab records that admit they failed routinely in expeditations to punish or subjugate Iranians there.
>fucked by the Mongols twice
Khwarazmian Empire is Turkic, Persianized yes, but a Turkic dynasty and a Turkish empire primarily. There was only a single invasion, one which broke the back of the Turkic army, the second got defeated by the Khwarazmians, and third which took Genghis to return to with a much larger army to defeat.
>got fucked by the turks
I think I see a pattern in your shitposting.

> implying they're not retaking Iraq as we speak

So what? Kurd means Outsider/Nomad in Persian, that doesn't make the Kurds ethnically Persian. The Parni's origins are unknown, their language is unknown, and we have little direct evidence of how it compared or differed from Iranian languages that were Eastern or Western Iranian and few fragmentary pieces of information from VERY QUESTIONABLE Greek and Latin sources.

The fact they are well away from the Danube areas also points they are unlikely related directly to the Scythians. Not buying it. Their origins are ambigious, and there is zero consensus by Iranianologists and others of what exactly the Dahae confederations were made up of outside of exclusive Iranian stock, which clearly was influenced by not directly from Scythians.

*but not directly from Scythians

The Mongols lost a single battle, which was avenged a few days later when the Kwarezmians were completely destroyed at the Battle of the Indus and then continued to rule Iran for the next century and a half. Is this your idea of the Mongols being 'literally ass-raped"?

>That was when the Safavid dynasty was declining
No it wasn't you retard. The Ottomans took Iraq in 1535, lost it in 1623 and took it back again in 1638. The Safavids couldn't hold onto the region at all.

Azeris are Iranians.

>Implying Kurds don't breed three times as fast as Azeris

You should be worrying about your own Kurds Mehmet.

I was talking about the single battle which the Mongols lost, not the total invasion, you asshole.

>The Safavids couldn't hold onto the region at all.
And the Ottomans couldn't dislodge or destroy the Safavids. Regardless, the Safavids couldn't be blunted from making incursions into Mesopotamia and Nader Shah achieved even greater success with the Persians making more inroads into Ottoman territory.

They will never be a majority and Iranian Azeris are originally Iranic anyways. Only the ones in Azerbaijan think their Turks because their language was Turkified and Russian propaganda.

>Descendants of Alexander are now some shitty ex-commie slavs
>Descendants of Arabs are still fucking goats and living in straw huts
>Descendants of Mongols are now slaves to Chinks, their entire country is literally a Chinese mine
>Descendants of Turks (and I mean real Turks, not those Muslim Armenians in Anatolia) are now living in Africa tier shitholes where they pick cotton for a living.

Indeed, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Turkic-Persian wars just proved the same shit as Roman/Byzantine-Persian/Parthian Wars, two superpowers that couldn't destroy each other would just weaken each other in the long run. Look after the fall of the Safavids and Afrashids, the Ottomans began to immediately start to decline as well. It was the same thing, just changed thousands of years later from the Roman/Byzantine Empires vs the Parthian/Sassanid Empires.

Ethnic Persians make up roughly half the population of a country of nearly 80 million and over 2/3rds the population speak Persian primarily. Azeris are the largest minority but they are still Iranian, my Turkic friend.

Nigger please.
Azeris are proven to have no genetic kinship to Persians whatsoever.

>I was talking about the single battle which the Mongols lost, not the total invasion
You said;
>Second Mongol INVASION got literally ass-raped by the Khwaramians
Just admit you're wrong.

>And the Ottomans couldn't dislodge or destroy the Safavids
You said the Safavids only lost Iraq when they were declining and you were wrong. Stop trying to move the topic to something else.

>Azeris are proven to have no genetic kinship to Persians whatsoever

Tip top kek, Mehmet. Azeris are closer to Kurds than they are to you.

I bet you think your "people" are actually Turkic, too.

If you want I can post another 8 or so maps to really drive home the point.

>You said
That wasn't my post.
>Admit you're wrong.
It wasn't my post, therefore I wasn't wrong because I'm not that poster.

>You said the Safavids only lost Iraq when they were declining.
Fair enough, I was wrong on that.

Yet another map

So Armenians are closer to Semites/Mesopotamians than to Iranians or Turks?
How come?

You are literally retarded. Azeris spoke an Iranian language and are recongized as being part of the "Aryan" i.e. Iranian race and stock since the times of the Medes. Turkic influx and influence on Azeris in independent Azerbaijan would't happen for almost 1500 years later and even then 2/3rds of Azeris are still mainly Iranian living in Iran vs Turkified Azerbaijan.

Not him but Armenians are mainly a ethno-religious group like modern day Jews/Israelitse and Egyptian Copts. Its not surprising.

Not Semites, I believe it's specifically Assyrians that Armenians are close to.

Most maps out there put Armenians between the Assyrian/ME Jew cluster and the Iranic/South Caucasus/Anatolia cluster.

Not sure about the reasons, desu, maybe Armenians and Assyrians had mixed in antiquity.

I'm just posting this to spite that buttblasted roach who fell for the >Turkic meme.

Don't most Iranian groups but especially Persians cluster closely with Southern Europeans like Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards too?

Assyrians are Semites

They got blanda' though. Same reason why you see so many very Cacuasian looking "Christian" Lebs.

>persians are so shit at war
that's where you're wrong kiddo

>inb4 turkic

>Are Persians white and Southern Euro

No, that's a meme perpetuated by LA diasporafags.

First of all, "Persians", "Kurds", "Azeris", "Gilakis" "Lurs" and all of the meme "ethnicities" in Iran are pretty much 98% genetically identical. That goes for all the meme ethnicities in the Caucasus too like Avars, Ossetians, Talysh.

Second of all, Iranians (which of course, includes all Iranian ethnicities) cluster specifically with Anatolia and the South Caucasus. You see this in pretty much every genetic map, Turks/Kurds/Armenians/Persians/Azeris share a huge amount of ancestry, so as a result they are basically as genetically close as Brits and French.

Third of all, genotype (which I consider the "real" marker of ethnicity) has very little to do with linguistic "ethnicity". If you look at most genetic maps, you see that people of the same linguistic "ethnic group" often have little to do with one another genetically.

Serbs for example are closer to Greeks than to Poles and Russians.

Turks are far, far closer to Kurds, Greeks, and Georgians than to Turkmens.

Persians are far closer to Azeris and Anatolian Turks than they are to Persian-speaking Afghans or Tajiks.

I blame this "linguistic ethnicity" meme on the French Revolution, which pushed the "one language for one people" nonsense.

Assyrians may speak a Semitic language, but their ancestry is quite different from other Semites. You can see in the maps that Assyrians are closer to other non-Semites than to Arabs.

Also, Most Lebs, even the Christian ones, tend to be genetically the same as other Levantines. Genotype does not always correlate with phenotype.

t. Autist who collects genetic maps for fun

A person is white depending on one's defintion of "whiteness". Let me give you a personal example here: I'm half-Persian and part of the Persian diaspora in the West. My mother is ethnically Persian from Mashhad, she is extremely light skinned and fair in compelxion; possessing even hazel/greenish eye color and her family on her father's side can trace back their ancestry to Nishapur more then a thousand years ago.

My father is Scottish and German, and she looks whiter then he does. My mothers relativese, her brothers are frequently mistaken for looking like Northern Europeans. No one knows they are Iranian unless they ask their names or origin country they immigrated from.

>Persian speaking-Afghans or Tajiks
I'm not sure I can buy this. Pashtuns and Tajiks are very closely genetically to Persians.As for pre-Turkic Anatolians, you do know those are primarily people of Greek and Roman descendant or pre-Turkic influence? That would lend credence to connections with Southern Europeans.

Some Scottish and English people look downright Mediterranean.

Pashtuns and Tajiks do not speak Persian, in fact during the 18th and 19th century they had several ethnic conflicts with Persian speakers.

They have consistently had some of the most important empires of all time, but just like Ancient Greece/Byzantine they have been in decline for centuries, there was only a resurgence when they discovered black gold.

True but my dad isn't one of the swarthy ones though. Also fuck LA Iranians.

Fuck the state of California period, it's a 3rd world hellzone.

>I'm not sure I buy this

Sorry bache jan, it's quite true. Yes, I've seen many "white" looking Iranians, but they're definitely the minority, and you can still tell they're Iranian by their facial features. Furthermore, I've seen countless examples of "white" looking Iranians with brown looking children, and vice versa.

Your mistake, which everyone makes, is assuming that diversity in skin tone equals diversity in genetics, and also assuming that sharing a skin tone means sharing genetics.

I can quite easily pass as Mexican, yet Mexicans are half a world away when it comes to genetics.

Skin colour is but one part of genetics, /pol/ is right when they say that race is more than just skin deep.

A light skinned Iranian is no more different from a dark skinned Iranian than a blue eyed Scot is from a green eyed Scot.

A light skinned Iranian is no closer to a light skinned Scot than a brown eyed German is to a brown eyed Uzbek.

That's what I love about genetic analysis, it puts to rest all this nonsense about language and phenotype and gives the cold, hard data.

Pashtuns no, but Tajiks do speak a dialect of Persian.

that bernie rally this is a may day march in cuba mate

As someone whose been to Iran several times and visited family there, there are a lot more "white" Iranians then you are claiming. Walk the streets of Tehran, you'll see red headed men and women quite often as well as people who tend to have auburn or brunette colored hair vs pure black. Just to be clear here, I have no agenda and don't care about the political connotations of being seen as "white", I am mixed Persian, Scottish, and German. I identify as ethnically Persian, I don't care about anything else on that remark but I do recongize there are kinship between European Caucasians and those of the Near East, Caucasus and Western Asia.

>Tajiks
They are the most influenced and impacted with East Asian (i.e. Turkic and Mongolic) DNA in their gene pool. Still closely related to Persians more then any other group linguistically, culturally, and historically.

Also, Tajiks are in fact closer to Uzbeks than to Iranian Persians (and yes I'm aware Uzbeks are half-Iranic genetically, but still.)

Check the previous picture I posted for more confirmation (I assume you guys are at least reading these images).

>bunch of spics celebrating communism

What's the difference?

Assyrians and Jews are as Semitic as you can get bro... And that's where they cluster with.

>Uzbeks are half-Iranic genetically
I have never heard this before. Explain further and without just posting these haplogroup or whatever maps.

Iranians come from the same proto-indoeuropean tribe as whites, so you might look more white than other MEs.

Are you retarded? Blanda with who?
Assyrians are bona fide descendants of the actual Assyrians.
They have zero European admixture. Less than Arabs.

>A bit white
A bit of an understatement, user.

Never said anything about Arabs admixing with Assyrians but I'd like to see some hard data on Iraqi Assyrian genetics regardless. Also keep it civil, mate.

>Red headed

That's because Tehroonis have this weird fetish of coloring their hair, along with nose jobs and degenerate behaviour in general. Only Rashtis come close.

I don't have that image saved but I do recall one that showed the percentages of hair color/eye color, for Iran it's something like 1% blond, 4% brown and 95% black hair, and something like 8% blue/green eyes.

Believe me I've gone to Iran quite a few times, the average Iranian looks a lot like your average Turk from Central Anatolia, and that's not counting the southern coast and southeast.

First of all, Uzbeks in every genetic map are halfway between Iranians and Mongolians/Siberians, who are largely considered the closest to "pure" Turkic.

Second of all, Khawarzem/Sogdiana/Bactria was in the same location as modern Uzbekistan.

Do the cities of Samarqand and Bukhara ring a bell? How about the Samanids?

The area of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan was densely populated with Iranians in antiquity, and modern Kazakhstan was populated by Scythians (who were an Eastern Iranic tribe).

Despite Genghis and Timur's attempts, completely genociding an entire race is quite a difficult feat, and it shows in the region, most people there look like hapas for a reason.

Arabs aren't the only Semites you idiot. Assyrians cluster with Iraqi Jews who are also unarguably Semites.
Claiming Assyrians aren't Semitic is so incredibly and profoundly stupid.

And how many Pathans look like that, maybe 1%?

>Tehroonis have this weird fetish of coloring their hair
I wasn't talking about dying one's hair. I'm talking about natural hair color here and pigmentation as well.

>I don't have that image saved for hair/eye color percentages
I'd like to see the sources behind it because again because natural light colored hair in Central and Northern Iran are quite high.

Probably 45-50% if we're being honest here.

Come on baradaram, this autism is just embarrasing.

There's no reason to post random Pamiris or Tajik villagers and try and pass them off as our own, you guys sound like Turks with that nonsense, claiming "VE ARE VITE".

Only losers try and be something that they aren't.

Probably 2 or 3% at best, but Pathans thenselves are not only more isolated/inbred than Iranians (inbreeding by the way, does help perpetuate rare genes), they also have quite a few genetic difference from Iranians.

I can't repost my old images, so I'll just ask you guys to actually read the damn images for once.

lmao not even REMOTELY close

>Autism
What autism?
>As our own
Are you Azeri? Kurdish? I'm not getting the poisoning the well thing because you seem unduly bothered by white Iranians.

>Tajiks
Are Persians.

What does pic related look like to you?

I don't get your issue with me. I already explained myself to you. Hell if it makes you feel better, my brother is swarthy to an extent and looks Italian/Greek unlike my sisters, myself, or my father and mother.

Haplogroups, genetics, DNA, its all variables and up to chance.

How closely to Iraqi "Arabs" cluster to Iranians?

It's the Aryan genetics.

Alright here's the data I was talking about btw, comes from this link which took like 5 seconds of googling s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4659289/1/

Ya khoda this is why our diaspora gets made fun of.

My father is Mashhadi and my mother is Kermani, so I assume I'd be a "pure Persian".

I'm not bothered by white Iranians, I'm bothered by you guys who seem to be so self-hating that you'd lie about Iran like that.

There are White Iranians, Olive skinned Iranians, and Brown Iranians, and most Iranians look olive skinned, like your average Turk or Armenian or Lebanese. Look up any random Sepah gathering on Google Images and tell me how many look "european".

What exactly did I lie about?

>olive skinned
So like 99% of Southern Europeans too? I keep bringing this up and you keep dismissing or ingoring this totally.

Not very close, see the maps I posted for details.

Iranians are almost an order of magnitude closer to Turks, despite Iraq being closer to Iran than Turkey.

Southern Euro, although with a bigger nose than usual.

If you're going to play that game however, I'll post people too.

>image
>no sources
>no links
>no citations
Yeah that's totally legit man.

>This research is supposed to represent the distribution of blond hair, light eyes and red hair among 20-30 year old Caucasians from the various countries of Europe and Northern America.
>I've been working on producing these charts for about a year or so. Most of it is original work but I have consulted professional advise as a supplement or in cases where sample size wasn't large enough.
>I was about to research Latin America a while back but have not yet completed that project due to loss of interest. Nevertheless I suppose I could include the preliminary results for hair color in several countries of that region. This data takes into account the entire population. I've also presented the few regional samples for White Brazilians that I was able to examine so far. I have limited research for the frequency of light eyes in this region but it appear that it approaches nearly 20% for Caucasians alone.
>For more in depth information on the subject I would recommend the works of Coon or Lundman. I am retiring from the field of anthropology and this may prove to be my final work. Some people may argue over the validity of the results but I have far too much money to be expected to enter internet discussions.

This isn't legitimate at all.

>Iranians are almost an order of magnitude closer to Turks.
Because modern day Turkey's Turks are heavily intermixed with both Semitic and Iranian stocks, and are genetically closer to Iranians then their own Turkic speaking relatives like Turkomens.

>Iraqi
Not buying this. Iraq was part of the Iranian ancestral home of the Persians for nearly 2000 years, Iranian influence on Eastern Iraqis in particular even excluding Assyrians, Mandaneans, and Kurds is very prominent.

>pic related
Looks partially Slavic and South Balkanish to me.

>Like 99% of Southern Europeans

Some of them, yeah. That being said, there's a considerable portion of Iranians who look quite brown, much like Turks and Kurds. Percentages are important, you can't simply post the rare Iranian with blond hair/blue eyes and pass him off as the average.

>Slavic

Dude what? Show me one slav with that skin tone.

And yes Kurds are pretty much the same as other Iranians. Arabs on the other hand, are not. I don't know why you dismiss these maps like that, they're quite legit. Iraqis have a considerable (like 25%) Arab admixture and about 5% Sub-Saharan African admixture as well.

...

There are North Africans that look much much "whiter" and European than that.
Does that mean North Africans are Europeans?
No of course it doesn't.
Phenotype isn't genotype. Blue eyes or blonde hair don't determine your genome and I can't believe this has to be said.

Pigmentation is mostly just adaptation to local environment.
Just like south Caucasus people who live in dark mountains are light skinned despite being fully near eastern genetically. Or Berbers who live in dark mountains are light skinned unlike north Africans who live outside the mountains under hot African sun.

Here's Carleton S. Coon's map

Jesus fucking Christ, thank you. I've been trying to tell this retards this for the last 60 or so posts, yet they still continue with their "muh viteness" autism.

Sure is butthurt diaspora in this thread. I honestly have no idea why with 2500 years of history and culture to your name, your language being the language of court, poetry and science from Albania to Bangladesh, you still care about a something so stupid as being called white.

the thing is, each of those started speaking Persian and wanted to be a real Iranian after a generation or two. Hell, the Arabic invasion, which for all we know might have been a conscious attempt to eradicate the Persian language and culture (since we have such a dearth of written sources from the era) ended with the Persian language being spoken in a larger area than before the conquest.
So the real strength is its capacity of assimilation. Still, not discounting muh nigga Cyrus the Great who invented global conquest and empires, ruling an area that encompassed like 40% of global population at the time. It's hard to beat that.

You're right that Iraqis should be closer to Iranians.
The problem with all those genetic maps is that they use the same standard genomes that someone collected. When it comes to Iraqis, genomes were collected from some heavily Arab/Bedouin village in Iraq.
I saw many individual Iraqis who did 23andme or something, and they almost always come out closer to Iranians.

That image is bullshit for England

>Dude what? Show me one slav with that skin tone.
Not that dude, but there's plenty of people in Serbia or Bulgaria with that skintone. Not that it means anything. Slavs aren't a ethnic group either, more linguistic.

Somebody needs to nuke LA, our diaspora is an insufferable cancer on the earth.

I understand that shame over the IR is a thing, but this "white and european" fetish is ridiculous.

How many other ethnic groups have this ridiculous self-hate?

Here's some Razi to at least lift people's spirits up.

kek sassanid found itself on their knees after declaring war on eastern rome just because they dont defend their northern borders well
t. Heraclius

Parthians were influenced by Scythians but Parthian language is Northwest Iranian, while Scyhian is Eastern Iranian

however the Scythian civilizations did include: Bactria, Oxus, Transaxonia, Sogdiana, Kashgaria, Khotan, Khwarezmia, just not technically Parthia
Scythaic / Eastern Iranian includes:
Sakan, Scythian, Khotanese, Bactrian, Khwarezmian, Sarmatian, Avestan, Sogdian, Pashto, Yaghnobi, and Ossetian

all being dialects of Scythian/Eastern Iranian

the Oxus civilization, Transsaxonia, Khwarezm, Herat, Bactrian, Sogdian, Sakastan, Khotan, Khasgar, Yarkand, Balkh, Merv are all part of the greater Scythian family

in fact Zoroastrianism is Scythian

That doesn't have anything to do with a "source" being posted by which is made up by a random fellow on the internet who provides no sources, citations, or data.

The Parthians were not Scythians, you nig.

In fact it was yet another confederacy of Indo-Iranians Horseniggers consisting of the Parni, the Daha, some Sakas, and the Hyrkanians.

>Sure is butthurt diaspora in this thread.
Almost every Iranian thread has them, I feel sad that I can't discuss certain topics here, without them ruining it.

Same with Ottomans, which turn in moments to eastern europe-turkish shitposting match

>Transaxonia

>Dude what? Show me one slav with that skin tone.
Look at the average Southeastern Slav, many of them are swarthy.

Stop the bullshit pretenses with the trolling.

Heraclius pulled out the ultimate comeback attack in history but stop acting like the Romans/Byzantines didn't often get their shit pushed in by the Sassanids. Another poster already mentioned the previous three wars ended in the Sassanids favors and the main reason Heraclius won was because Khosrau Parviz was insanely jealous of his top generals which ended with Shahrabaraz entirely removing his elite forces from the final war effort which had like 12,000 veteran Byzantine heavy infantry and calvary vs 6,000 Persian cataphracts and archers on the outskirts of Ctesiphon. And even then Heraclius could not actually besiege the Sassanid capital because:

a) he had no siege engines or weapons
b) did not possess the manpower to remotely starve out the Sassanids
c) the bridges to the capital city were all destroyed by the remnants of the last loyalist army retreating back to the city walls
d) it could've blown back on Heraclius and potentially against reverse the tide of the war a third or fourth time

Zoroastiranism is not Scythians. Scythians did not speak Avestan 3600-3500 years ago and just because Zarathustra hails from that area does not equate to him being Scythian, who would show much later with Indo-Iranian tribal movements. In fact its likely were Proto-Persians and Medes probably descended through the Caucaus and Eurasia to the Iranian plateau.

There is no butthurt here. Please stop with this bullshit. There has been a civil discussion despite one "supposed" Iranian trying to play out the opposite in the thread. Also its ironic you even talk about butthurt when the OP made this thread to specifically shitpost against Iranians in the first place with his /int/ tier /pol/ bullshit.

>our diaspora
I don't think you are Persian and everyone in this thread has already agreed LA Iranians are shit but you keep beating the dead horse on it. What's your agenda? To shitpost more?

>In fact its likely were Proto-Persians and Medes probably descended through the Caucaus and Eurasia to the Iranian plateau.
Doesn't Avesta explicitly mention locations in Khwarezm though, rather than north-western Iran?
Trying to have an actual conversation here, not trolling btw.

I don't know off hand. What I do know is Zoroaster/Zaruthusthra has jackshit to do with Scythians so this is some definite WE WAZ MONOTHEISTS FIRST bullshit of the highest caliber, almost as bad as Abrahamic fags thinking Zoroastrianism only came around 600 BC.

Dont forget

>soon gonna get fucked by america

Parni were heavily Persianized, and the Parthian language is closer related to Persian then Scythian, we even know they have common lexical terms with Persian, both Old and Middle unlike Scythian, which is broken up even further into various inter-regional dialects.

You're full of it if you think Parni = Scythians.

US has has been claiming this for decades and the worst that has happened is the embarassment for America in the Iran-Contra affair, coordinating with both Iran and Israel against Iraq, and unofficially working with Iran today against ISIS.

Its been 45 years and jackshit has happened, son.

>A proto-Zoroastrian temple in Margiana). ... >Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia

books.google.ca/books?isbn=1588392058

>The Scythian belief was a more archaic stage of Zoroastrian and Hindu systems. The use of cannabis to induce trance and divination by soothsayers was a characteristic of the Scythian belief system.[71]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Religion

Avestan is part of the Scythaic Eastern Iranian family

tl;dr Scythians practiced proto-Zoroastrianism

My initial "agenda" was posting genetic maps to counter that Turkroach earlier in the thread.

For some reason you idiots decided to barge in with your "ve vuz vite n shiet" shitposting, and started posting cherrypicked photos and insisting that the average Iranian looks like a european.

This is the sort of thing I make fun of Turks for doing, and it's obviously embarrasing and false, so naturally I tried to argue against it, so you'd quit embarrassing yourself and Iranians in general.

>I don't think you are Persian
>"Supposed" Iranian

I could say the same thing about you, you sound like a troll trying to make Iranians look bad.

It's far more likely that you're just some underage self-hating retard who claims "I'm not Iranian, I'm PEEERRRRRRRRSIAN", like some Maz Jobrani caricature.

You guys tried with Saddam, and the result was that Iraq is now an Iranian puppet state.

Of course, Zoroastrianism is likely heavily derived from Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Iranian mythology.

Fun fact, Indian mythology has Asura and Deva, while Iranian mythology (and Zoroastrianism) has Ahura (for Ahura Mazda) and Div (which means devil, or demon).

>Scythians practiced an archaic form of Pre-Zoroastrian religion
Doesn't contradict my statement.
>Was a more archaic stage THAN the Zoroastrian or Hindu belief system
Try again. TL ; dr, they didn't practice Zoroastrianism and you literally even sabotaged your own claim with both links you provided.

Are you the same retard that was claiming the Parni are Scythians?

This user which is isn't Persian. I thought this was quite obvious from the fact that I used "you" and "your" in the post.