I subscribe to the beliefs of the first link. The second is what /pol/ preaches. Although I'm inclined not to believe the stormfags, they do cite things such as Herodotus using the term "Aryan" in 450BC. Is it bullshit or are they on to something?
Please, /pol/, for the sake of truth, do not shit up this thread. I encourage everyone here regardless of what you believe to REQUEST A SOURCE FROM EACH AND EVERY REPLY. It will clear a fuckton of things up.
Aryan is a self-designation by Iranian and Indian people, no non-Indo-Iranian has ever called themselves an Aryan but in the early days of comparative linguistics it was "assumed" that the term was used in ancient times by all IE people, and it was for a time a synonym for Indo-Europeans, but in modern times it's not used outside it's linguistic sense.
Asher Wood
In regards to the Herodotus thing, I found this on some old forum stating Herodotus was only talking about the Medes, who were Iranians. The Median Empire though did stretch into Anatolia which could somewhat explain the stormfag's retardation. Oh, and idk how to source "Book 7.62.1" but if you know what that means please enlighten me.
Andrew Bell
Aryan is no good (it applies to a specific people) but Indo-European is no good either (they leave out the Iranian branch. Properly it should be Indo-Iranic-European). IMO Japhetic would have been the best name for the Indo-European of languages and people just as Hamitic would have been the best name for the Afro-Asiatic languages and people.
Aaron Bell
Who the fuck call themselves aryan if not iranians (which means aryan)?
Probably some of those old tribes but really no one, even during greek times, SPECIALLY in Europe call themselves aryan or something similar to that.
I don't know why it has been merged with the nordicism theory. That shit ruined everything.
If the Indo-European invasion/migration is true and they "wiped out" the indigenous european people long time ago then they you could call them aryans although this would be the same as calling the indigenous people of America (the continent) "soloutreans".
IMO that's wrong. Fucking germans Indogermanisch instead of Indoeuropean which just makes everything worse.
And even worse is if you think this is a race or something since "race" is extremely difficult to define even in antiquity. Were sarmatians, alans, greeks and romans from a single race?
Jason Richardson
holy crap I wrote that in broken english I should get more sleep
Jaxson Johnson
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=7:chapter=62 >The Medes in the army were equipped like the Persians; indeed, that fashion of armor is Median, not Persian. Their commander was Tigranes, an Achaemenid. The Medes were formerly called by everyone Arians,1 but when the Colchian woman Medea came from Athens to the Arians they changed their name, like the Persians. This is the Medes' own account of themselves. [2] The Cissians in the army were equipped like the Persians, but they wore turbans instead of caps. Their commander was Anaphes son of Otanes. The Hyrcanians2 were armed like the Persians; their leader was Megapanus, who was afterwards the governor of Babylon.
Grayson Gonzalez
>Who the fuck call themselves aryan if not iranians (which means aryan)?
Indians used the term too in ancient times, and various people in Afghanistan are also Aryans. Presumably the Mittanni were also Aryan, but we only have one book written in Hanigalblat and it's about breeding horses for chariots.
Ryan Reed
Did the Mittanni called themselves Aryan? Some afghans also?
I know that "calling themselves" and "being" is different but at least it makes shit easier.
Gabriel Jackson
>I know that "calling themselves" and "being" is different
Not when it come to demonyms it isn't.
>Did the Mittanni called themselves Aryan?
As I said we don't what they called themselves, however they came from the same indo-iranian stock as the Persians and Indians so if I had to guess I'd say they probably did.
