Who were the Aryans?

Steppe peoples it looks like. But they only created great civilizations after mixing with neolithic farmers.

As the minoan and myceanean dna study pretty much shows. So I don't know why nordicist types want to claim them so much. As the less admixed ones in Northern Europe didn't do much.

It's obvious that the Romans owe much to pre-indo european etruscans, who they were probably heavily admixed with. And the Greeks owe to their mycenean and minoan ancestors.

The one on the left has amerindian admixture

Amerimutts confirmed

wrong, indo-europeans were the catalyst that launched minoans into greatness

Same with BMAC, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Elam, and the Fertile crescent for indoaryans and hittites

Indians

farmers created great civilizations after mixing with steppe people*

Aryans are scat

Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Assyrians, all non indo-european civilizations.

I think the genius comes from the Neolithic peoples myself. But the organizational and military brilliance comes from the Steppe peoples.

norwegians are north germanic.

Iranian word for "lord," became synonymous with Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians. Ancestor to most European, Iranian, and north Indian peoples who came from central Asia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

No, they came from modern day Ukraine and Russia.

forgot to add in Europe Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Greeks, and Latins are all Indo-European. Semites and pre-celtic peoples like Leusitanes and Basques are not indo-European

Yeah I guess you're right

>Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Assyrians, all non indo-european civilizations.
But they were all ruled by Indo-Europeans at some point, IE civilization is clearly supreme.
>I think the genius comes from the Neolithic peoples myself
And yet they got ruled by Indo-European elites and adopted the culture, language and religion of said elites.

>But they were all ruled by Indo-Europeans at some point, IE civilization is clearly supreme.

None of them were

Rome and Alexander etc

Literally none of anything other than farming (for the neolithic farmers) should be associated with either group. Even the major races have trouble being distinguished, comparing two intermingled central eurasian groups as if they're monolithic and easily distinguishable is next level pseudoscience.

>Other groups adopted indo european culture
Lol

>History comes first as tragedy, then as farce.

Wow, Hegel really brainstromed for that gem.

Steppe peoples (think proto-Mongols) who migrated out of what is modern-day Ukraine/Russia outward into both Central Europe and South Asia, where they intermingled wirh and/or conquered the locals through typical steppe tactics (i.e. horseback archery = tactical nuclear weapons of the ancient-to-medieval world) and eventually disappeared as a defined group of their own, having been subsumed by the peoples they conquered. The biggest Aryan migration was in India, which has led to debate about how much of early Indian culture is native Indian vs. Steppe/Aryan (but it's a dumb debate because the Dravidians didn't get Aryan-ed and their religious and architectural sensibilities are more similar to those of the old Indus civilization than the ones who were).

You have to look up their history as "Indo-Iranian" now though, instead of Aryan, because since Aryan has negative connotations due to the Nazi WE WUZing (which is still historically the weirdest WE WUZ ever because the Aryans were an ultimately unremarkable footnote in Central Asian politics, usually WE aims a but higher than that), they felt they had to arbitrarily rename them something more PC despite the fact that actual Aryans called themselves Aryans.

>(which is still historically the weirdest WE WUZ ever because the Aryans were an ultimately unremarkable footnote in Central Asian politics, usually WE aims a but higher than that)
this. I don't understand where or how racial scientists back then got the idea that they were all aryans, a group of people from central fucking asia. apparently it's because they discovered a link between indo-iranian languages and european languages? if that's the case then it still makes no sense since aryan languages are just one branch of the overall indo-european language family which they instead calling the entire family "aryan". why aryan? why not celtic or germanic?

no such thing