Origin of Slavs

>comparing this to fake nigger history

This basically just says that ancient Iranians are modern day Slavs. That's not hard to believe. Their culture/appearance were almost identical. And their languages are similar.

>History
>Slavs were first created by Radegast late in the Iron Age. In the War of Rome, the Slavs made up a large part of Attila's Army, together with the Dunlendings, man-enemies of Rome. There are suggestions that the Slavs of Sclaveni were the result of crossbreeding slavs and men. Certainly, there were other creatures in Attila's armies, and under his command in the Balkans, that appear to have been hybrids. "Half-slavs" were as tall as Men and are never described simply as slavs, as the Slav frequently are. It has also been suggested that the Slav are the cross-breeds of indo-iranians and half-slavs. Attila's army of Slavs fought against King Théoden of Rome and his people at the holy city of Istanbul.

>That's not hard to believe.
Yes it is.
>Their culture/appearance were almost identical.
No, they had nothing to do with each other.
>And their languages are similar.
Not by a stretch.

>The Sarmatians of Iranian people

>Their territory, which was known as Sarmatia to Greco-Roman ethnographers, corresponded to the western part of greater Scythia (mostly modern Ukraine and Southern Russia, also to a smaller extent north eastern Balkans around Moldova).

Are you being retarded on purpose?

Do you speak Farsi or Russian?

They are Iranic, it doesn't mean they originated in Iran at all. It's an ethno-linguistic term.

>even though most modern day Iranians look brown
Proof?
>Slavs are essentially more closely related to the original iranians than modern day Iranians themselves
Proof?
>since Aryan Persians migrated to Eastern Europe prior to the Muslim conquest
Proof?

Do you speak both?

>Do you speak Persian* or Russian?

Do you speak Swahili or Arabic?

are you? since when has iran been in eastern europe?

Sarmatians and Scythians descend from the same proto-Indo-Iranian group that descends directly from the Andronovo culture but stayed in that same area between the Ukraine, Russia and into Central Asia; the other Iranian peoples like the Persians, Medes, Gilaks, etc...descended through the Caucasus mountains into the Iranian plateau.

Interestingly some reconstructions of Indo-European phylogeny have the most recent 'split' between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian

>pic related
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

Yes.

Not him but the Sarmatians are known for straddling into both Eastern Europe around the Balkans and through the Ukraine.
So what?

[citation needed]

Proof?

Apparently this belief was a thing in Poland for a time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

I doubt the veracity of this theory, although there is evidence of Sarmatian tribes extending into parts of Eastern Europe, they were likely quickly assimilated by the local Slavs, similar to the Huns in Hungary or the Bulgars in Bulgaria.

Also, anyone have that image of a map with "Sarmatian admixture" with the Polish version of Alberto Barbosa over it?

It would probably be applicable to this thread.

It's called Farsi you retarded nigger. Only non-Persians call it Persian.

More likely they descended from east of the Caspian, but the rest is correct.

>Not brown

Maybe by African standards.

I can take images of Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuegse and make them look darker and "browner" as well with google image search as well.
>The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has declared that the name "Persian" is more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in western languages and better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national continuity.[32] Some Persian language scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater, editor of Encyclopædia Iranica, and University of Arizona professor Kamran Talattof, have also rejected the usage of "Farsi" in their articles.

Do you know what ethno-linguistic means? The study of the relationship between language AND culture. Iranic people ARE Iranian people.

We call it Persian, you faggot. Arabs call Pepsi as "Fepzi", as well since they can't into the letter P.

K.
Nice (You) btw.

so, they would say bebsi. iranian here.

>iranian here

>muh Sarmatians
You people do realize that there are living ancestors to them in Ossetia?

Hell, the Ossetian language is the last surviving branch of ancient Scythian, so go compare them to the slavs.

There is no reason to believe they specifically became Slavs. More likely they're related to Ossetians, who actually speak an East Iranian language.

East Slavs likely have some Scythian ancestry, but specifically Mordvins and related groups are likely Uralized Scythians or close since they have the closest genetic affinity to PIE steppe peoples.

...

What does this mean?

Point stands. They don't come from Iran.

"Persia" isn't even an Iranian word. Iran was named Persia by the Greeks in 500 BC.

Is she supposed to look white?

Work those neurons.
His point is that they are Iranian because Iranian = Iranic; people sharing the same root culture, languages, and origins.
Persia is the Greek corruption of Parsa from Persian. Cyrus is what you call Koroush, we all know this stuff.

That looks pretty white to me, Jamal.

Persis was a region in ancient Persia.
Persians called all Greeks "Ionians", but Ionia is only a region ancient Greeks inhabited.

I fired my neurons, and I still haven't figured it out.

How is she not exactly white? Looks like any woman from Southern Europe.

Then you are retarded.

I've seen shit tons of Slavs that look brown as fuck, mate. Have you ever actually been to the Balkans or Southeastern Europe before?
>Slavs are more Iranian and closer to ancient Iranians then modern Iranians
This is super retarded bait.

Why don't you say what you mean explicitly

But I did.

Persian and Sarmatian similarities are restricted to their distant past. Also Sarmatians spoke an East Iranic language and Persians spoke a West Iranic language. They had different religions, different lifestyles and different influences. Iran borrowed a lot from neighboring cultures and peoples, and it was already inhabited by sedentary peoples when the indo-europeans arrived.

Oh, so did you claim to be a member of the CIA?

...

The only difference between Slavs and Ossetians is that Slavs went West from Sarmatia and Ossetians went south.

They look completely slavic to me.

>Sarmatians spoke an East Iranic language
>Persians spoke a West Iranic language
Hence, a related group and family of languages, not disproving my point here.
>They had different religions
They were both largely polytheistic, had the same unifying view of fire, and ancestor worship that are common in Indo-Iranian peoples. Still not disproving my point.
>different lifestyle
Persians were semi-nomadic pastorals. The Scythians were fully-nomadic pastorals. Not that dissimilar until Cyrus showed up and changed them.
>difference influences
Nope.
>Iran
Iran didn't exist as a nation-state back then.
>from neighboring cultures
All Indo-Iranian peoples did, the Scythians and Sarmatians are no different from that.

I proved you were retarded.

Exactly, so there is your connection to slavs and indo-iranians.

So please stop comparing them to modern Persians that basically are Arabs at this point.

...

Slavs were already in the west and had a distinct culture/language. Sarmatians descend from the group that actually went east while Slavs and linguistically most ethnicities in Europe descend from the group that went west.

I never compared them to modern Persians. In fact, my whole point was that Slavs came from the ANCIENT Iranian people. Modern day Iranians are almost completely Arab. I explicitly said this in my original post.

I was talking about the thread in general, apologies if it didn't come out that way.

I know you are but what am I? I was just confused because your response was a non sequitur.

No they weren't. Slavs weren't established until the 6th century. Sarmatians (at the time they were just the Medes) came to Eastern Europe around 400 BC.

>They were both largely polytheistic
Zoroastrianism is not polytheistic.
>had the same unifying view of fire
Just because Sarmatians had a fire god it doesn't mean that is a connection. Also the Zoroastrian fire temples were a later development and probably didn't exist in early Persian history. Scythians have nothing on fire rituals.
>and ancestor worship that are common in Indo-Iranian peoples
Not really sure what that's about?
>Persians were semi-nomadic pastorals.
Depends on the time, but a very large amount of them was sedentary.
>The Scythians were fully-nomadic pastorals.
As were pretty much everyone else who lived on the steppes at the time aside of a handful Greek colonists north of the Black Sea.

Zoroastrianism was not the dominant religion for Persians until the Sassanids. Until Katir came along, ancestor worship and the other Aryan and Iranian gods were worshiped until Katir ordered all family alters destroyed in Sassanid Persia.
>Just because Sarmatians had a fire god
And Goddess of River, and Goddess of Fertility, and God of Spring, and God of War, and God of Light, etc...I can go on. You really don't seem to know much about Iranian history but protip: scanning Wikipedia isn't going to help you out here.
>Not really sure what that's about?
The name completely gives it away.
>but a very large amount of them was sedentary
>majority pre-Achaemenid Persians
>sedentary
Nope.
>As were pretty much everyone else
And you just proved my point further that all Iranic peoples overlapped in almost every way. Scythian customs, culture, languages, dress, and so on were not alien to the Medes or the Persians or other Iranics living in the Iranian plateau. Or Central Asia. Or whatever.

>non sequitur
Nope, but keep being retarded.

You can't just spout a bunch of statements without posting sources. We're never going to learn anything if you just keep making stuff up without any proof.

>In fact, my whole point was that Slavs came from the ANCIENT Iranian people.
They didn't.

Tell me how you claim to think that what you said was relevant to what I said.

Zoroastrianism wasn't the state religion in any Persian state until Shapur II made it so to counter Constantine making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. In fact, one of the rival faiths in Persia since the Achaemenid period was Mithra, which hugely popular.

Tell me how you can be so retarded?

Nuh unh, you're retarded.

...

>Modern day Iranians are almost completely Arab.
That is unfounded statement and makes little sense. Neolithic pre-indo-european Iranians cluster genetically close to Afghans and Pakistanis, which are mostly "Iranic" too. Iron age Iranians are genetically very close to modern day Iranians.

We arent arabs tho. We are a mix of mesopotamian,caucasian and indo-euro.

Slavs came from the Sarmatians. How is that hard to understand? Iran and Russia are both located in the Caucasus. They are geographically very close, so why would it surprise you that they originated from the same people? The only reasons Iranians look so dark today is because of the Arab invasions. If that hadn't happened, Iranians would still be white.

>And Goddess of River, and Goddess of Fertility, and God of Spring, and God of War, and God of Light
Like pretty much all Indo-Europeans.

>Slavs came from the Sarmatians
You have yet to provide any actual evidence.

>Iran and Russia are both located in the Caucasus. They are geographically very close
The Caucasus is a barrier, not a corridor. There's a reason it's mostly inhabited by non-Indo-Europeans.

1. Where's the evidence?
2. Why are so many Slavs so dark and brown?
3. Define "whiteness".
4. Modern day Iranians cluster with their ancestors before Islamic conquest
5. Stop pulling the stormfront bullshit.

So how does that disprove any of my points or arguments? Their gods and goddesses even all shared the essential same names, purposes, and roles with other Indo-Iranian ones.

You definitely LOOK Arab. Originally, you were "European white." In fact, anyone who encountered the Sarmatians or the Scythians described them as fair skinned and blonde, with light eyes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Physical_appearance

...

Why are you posting Sarmatians to contest a post about Persians?

Iranians definitely DON'T. See , if the genetics weren't effected by Arabs, then the phenotypes wouldn't be either. Phenotypes in human genetics stem from environmental variables and influences.

Stop with your bullshit.

Because he's a goal post moving retard.

>look arab

Maybe for the untrained eye. I can still tell any arab from an iranian apart

Gr8 b8 m8

Some Slavs are dark and brown because during the 7th century, Islam came to the Caucasus. Arabs invaded and mixed with the locals. It's the same reason why Iranians today are brown and dark with a few exceptions.

>Slavs
>Caucasus
>because Ayyrabs
Nope, Slavics have always been a swarthy people.
>It's the same reason why Iranians today are brown and dark
You can keep claiming this but without evidence, your claims are groundless.
>with few exceptions
Wrong.

Come up with new bullshit at least if you are going to keep shitposting.

Sarmatians are an Iranian people.

Except if you want to talk about race, skull morphology, language, culture, and genetics are more relevant then phenotypes.Now there's tremendous overlap and continuation between pre-Islamic Iranians with post-Islamic conquered Iranians. Or how facially Iranians are still nothing like Semitics peoples or those who come from the same Afro-Asiatic groups.
Yes, but not all Iranian peoples are Persian. So still has nothing to do with that.

My point is they are dark, with dark features. I can also tell a Persian from an Arab, but you can't deny the similarities.

So are Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, and many Southern Europeans, especially several Slavic ones in the Balkans. You don't have any actual factual points.

I was only ever talking about Iranian people.

I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm saying original Iranians (who were nomadic) eventually became slavs. That doesn't mean that all of them remained white. Obviously Arabs came to Slavic regions too. My point is, Iranians are Slavs share an origin.

>I'm saying original Iranians (who were nomadic) eventually became slavs.
You never proved this claim.

>someone specifically talks about Persians
>bring up a specifically different group as with the Saramatians
Doesn't work that way.