I've been reading up a bit about the Scythians/Sarmatians and I'm interested. It seems to keep popping up...

Let me guess. You """study""" history so you can go MUH ANCESTORS THO on mongolian anime forums.

t. Asstriggered magyar

Not even, and the fact that you presume it is pathetic.

Your first wrong assumption is that you think that Scythians had actual country, instead of "Scythia" being a collective name of many Iranic nomadic tribes, which were around those areas.

Secondly, archaeological evidence shows that various Scythians were in area of such spread.

If you define "scythian" as "the people who lived in this here blob", then yes, that there blob was scythian.

Work on your definitions though, because I am pretty sure that most of the people you'd call scythians weren't aware of Scythia as a concept, or the scythian king, or any scythian army or identity, and probably were raiding each other every summer.

Scythian has the same value as european, when people make stupid threads about "why ruropeans didn't beat the ottomans", as if those people had anything in common and any allegiance to each other.

Maybe because the term scythia as a region was coined by foreigners and the term scythian to describe the people living there. Do 10 seconds of research or read some of the literature posted itt before sperging out over definitions.

It's not a definition of my own making, which you would have been aware of if you would actually know anything about it.

Maybe if you would stop projecting that there had to be some "Scythian King" to rule them all, you wouldn't look like someone who is denying evidence of Iranic nomads spreading thorough the lands shown in OP's map.

I said that "scythian" is a historian construct, not that you constructed it.
It isn't something that actually existed, rather a theory that is used to talk about a place and people we don't know shit about in reality.

fuck you dude, thats rude

Take it up with the ancient gayreeks then.

>I said that "scythian" is a historian construct, not that you constructed it.
>Work on your definitions though, because I am pretty sure that most of the people you'd call scythians
You know, you can even see your post right now, you don't even have to scroll through posts,

Attack the argument not the man.

When I say your house, I don't imply you built it.
When I say your mother, I don't imply you gave birth to her.

Work on your english (which I don't imply you created).

>OP asks about Scythians as a collective group (term used by historians to refer to the nomadic Iranic-speaking people), and Sarmatians in particular
>Sperging about posting map that shows general area where they were, complaining that they had greater area under control than Iranians (ignoring it's the steppe), and claiming they were limited to Persian borders despite evidence of the contrary
Given that unlike you, I clearly know that Scythians is collective term, and I have never implied that they were 100% unified, which seems your main point of sperging about.

Also>Stupid to map them, especially to make the point that they ruled so much land compared to Persia.
>especially to make the point that they ruled so much land compared to Persia.
>they ruled so much land compared to Persia.
So, Persian diaspora?

>if you disagree with me you are hungarian
>if you disagree with me you are a turk
>if you disagree with me you are iranian

??????

>Claims that Iranic-speaking nomads were only known to exist next to Persian borderland, which is Turk level revisionism
>When suspected to be Turkish or Hungarian, spergs about "MUH ANCESTORS THO" on a thread where OP was asking out of curiosity
>Apparently butthurt that nomads could control greater amount of lands than Persia, like only a Persian diaspora could sperg
Maybe would be a more of a board for you?

>insults are a nice substitute for arguments: the post

I'm still waiting for your arguments. You are yet to present any, besides falsely claiming that >The only place on the planet we knew they existed was next to the persian borders.

Scythia was a catch all phrase. Like Germania.
They were by no means unified or a state.
Just some tribes spread out over a huge area.

We only know of the scythians what the iranians told us, or what the greeks got from them.
The iranians only spoke about the more organized scythians living near them, not the alleged far corners of this assumed kingdom.

Thus whatever it is we know about scythians, we actually only know about the ones near the border, and project it on the others near them, without any certainty or really much reason to do so.

>What are burial sites
>Implying that Caucasus and north of the Black Sea counts, from Greek and Romansources, is Persian border
>Ignoring the Chinese sources talking about them in Tarim Basin
And once again you are writing about "assumed kingdom", despite nobody in this thread, or among historians, implying existence of unified Scythian kingdom that encompasses entirety of lands where they have lived.

>itt: autists arguing

>they
>them

And once again you speak of some unified, common, similar people, when we only know of a very small part of them, and assume the rest were similar.

Scythians is collective term for nomadic Iranic-speaking people.
So yes, in this context, "they" and "them" can be used without being interpreted as an unified state.

Maybe you should listen to your own advice and work on your English?

>Scythians is collective term for nomadic Iranic-speaking people.

Okay.
However every single historical source we have of these people are not about the nomadic iranic speaking people, but rather specifically about the less nomadic people near Persia.
So you take what you know about them and apply it to all the nomadic Iranic-speaking people, without proof of it.

>Black Sea
>Near Persia
OK.
But as this is going in circles, you could contribute to this thread in a different way than complaining about semantics.

Like, share your sources, maps, anything,

All sources are about the people near civilization, and all others are assumed to be the same, without reason.
Share your sources about hwy you think the further areas of this blob on the map also were inhabited by the same people, acting in the same way under the same rule.
Protip: no such sources exist.

>inhabited by the same people,
GROUP of Iranian speaking people. That means several tribes.
>acting in the same way
It's funny how to you a large group equates to one big confederacy with completely unified culture, when none of the kingdoms or empires existing at the time that consisted of many ethnic groups had unified culture
>under the same rule.
And here's the main problem. You insist that the map is implying it was unified kingdom, despite no such claim being ever made, either by map or by people in this thread, except of you.

So you are saying the only thing that unites these people is the made up idea that they are the same.
Okay, I agree, thats my point. Nobody can learn about them, since we don't know shit about them, only about a small part of them that the others likely didn't emulate.

How can somebody invest so much time in writing utter bullshit? I know this is Veeky Forums but I'm still astounished by the levels of autism on this site