BTFO'd by

BTFO'd by

> Persians
> Scythians
> Greeks
> Mauryans
> Kushans
> Arabs
> Turks
> Mongols
> Timurids
> turban pooinloos
> Bongs

Only dynasty which is actually Afghan is the Durrani Empire and that only lasts 73 years. The rest are mostly just Turkics.

Is there a single more pathetically overrated place historically?
They didn't even have a written language until the 16th century despite being stuck between Persia, China and India.

Attached: 1448498102822.png (1030x727, 79K)

>Literal mountain/desert wasteland
>Why didn't they do stuff lmao?
Because you would legit have an easier time starting a prosperous nation on Mars than in Afghanistan.

>wasteland

Not all of it, and it wasn't always so. The north and the central plateau is cool and fertile. The only true wasteland lies in the south with the Sistan Basin.

>btfo by bongs
>literally the only country to resist them
>british empire at its fucking peak made 3 attempts for kabul and only managed to control the country's foreign policy

That's the origin of the myth actually.
British love to exaggerate their victories, and if they get raped they love to exaggerate the strength of their opponents.

>h-heh its all a british conspiracy!
you sound like a /pol/tard
Moden Afghanistan is notoriously difficult to subjugate, somehow they managed to do it thousands of years ago but you can't claim shit like brits can't fight because romans conquered them

>and only managed to control the country's foreign policy
But that was intentional. The country was kept as a buffer between Russia.

And there was no multiple attempts. The first attempt itself would have been successful as they pierced through the country and captured the capital but the diseases and inability to track the land got to them (the latter still fucks up yanks today)

I think most countries in the modern era would be too hard to control with the now excess of guns in the world. Just take a look at Palestine and Israel.

Attached: viet-cong.jpg (876x1390, 209K)

So just like the Romans did?

>muh /pol/
Holy, shit get out of your echochamber.

The "Graveyard of Empires" is pretty much unanimously considered to be a myth created by the British. It was only in the later 18th century with the Hotaki's that Afghanistan started to be a bother to conquer and retained any real independence.

Its previous history is literally: Persians, Alexander the Great, Mauyra, Greeks, Kushans, White Huns, Indians again, Arabs under Ummayads and then Persian again via Abbasids, more Iranian dynasties like the Saffarids, only now Muslim, Turkic conquerors like the Ghaznavids or Ghurids, Mongols, Turko-Mongol conquerors and then finally Persians.

They've had very few native dynasties in their history.

>They've had very few native dynasties in their history.
Weren't there were Buddhist kingdoms hidden in Afghanistan from the end of the Kushans up to the eventual Ghaznavid conquest nearly 500 years later?

You mean the Shahi Kingdoms? They did exist for a few centuries, but they were annexed by the Saffarids, roughly 200 years before the Ghaznavids. They were Hindu rulers with some Turkic influences who spoke Sanskrit. So definitely not native.

Afghanistan has a worse record of native rule than fucking Finland I'd say. At least they were independent tribes with some Norse influence until the beginning of first millennium, compared to the Afghans who haven't had proper native rule since Cyrus conquered their ass until the Hotaki in the 17th century. That's over 2000 years.

>They were Hindu rulers with some Turkic influences who spoke Sanskrit. So definitely not native.
Wut
They could have been Indianized or something.

Many populations in the world were, but that's not the point.

if you brought some jews in they might make the flowers bloom

Anyone else sad about the Nuristanis being forcibly converted from their Vedic religion and losing a good deal of their old culture?

I think it's really cool that their women used to dress like pic related

Attached: 1506780_10205634817250207_5937077544126856343_n.jpg (280x406, 40K)

many dynasties have arisen from the native populace of afghanistan, these include dynasties such as the saffarids, samanids, ghorids, ghaznavids and so on

t. greater iranboo

>Persians
cousins to iranic peoples, doesn't matter, eastern iranics also ruled over persians (saffarids, samanids, ghorids etc.)

>scythians
iranic peoples, tajiks/pashtuns descend from them

>greeks
they conquered everyone, so what

>mauryans
never conquered afghanistan, can tell you're a pajeet, they were handed some provinces by seleucus who lost some fights

>kushans
tajiks/pashtuns descend from them anyway

>arabs
true, everyone got btfo by them

>turkics/mongols
turkics you mean, then yes at some points turkics/mongols ruled

>bongs
nope

the hindu shahis were kushans, not poo in loos

I thought Pastuns and other eastern iranians were half of those people.

they are, it's a shitposter op, he makes threads about how indians are always conquered and enslaved, sometimes he makes the same threads about afghanistan and iran too

I suspect he is an arab.

>abbasids
>persian

>Iranian dynasties like the Saffarids, only now Muslim, Turkic conquerors like the Ghaznavids or Ghurids
you realize the saffarids were from where afghanistan lies today right? That they were persians/tajiks? same with ghorids and ghaznavi was half turkic/half persian from afghanistan

kys retarded paki

he's probably a paki/indian/arab going by his previous posts

>Ghaznavids
The Saffarids were from Afghanistan but the Ghaznavids was a Turkic dynasty that took over Persia, although they were Persianized thoroughly.
They really have nothing to do with Afghanistan.

mahmud of ghaznis mother was a persian/tajik from afghanistan, his father was a turkic slave
ghaznavis army was filled with persians/tajiks/pashtuns/turkics

he was born in ghazni, in afghanistan, to a family that was of mixed native afghan (persian or pashtun) and turkic origin

jesus what is with you guys and ethnonationalism and historical revisionism

I should add, afghanistan didn't really exist at the time, but the people should remain the same

I'm talking about the origin of the dynasty itself, not Ghazni. They became Persianized after their conquests.

Usually in afghanistan when people think of ghaznavids, we think of mahmud of ghazni, not sabuktin

also another important part, sabuktin and his fellows were all soldiers/high ranking in the samanid empire which was from tajikistan/north afghanistan too

>tfw fags on Veeky Forums know more about your nation's history than you

>Usually in afghanistan when people think of ghaznavids, we think of mahmud of ghazni, not sabuktin
I'm not surprised. Ghazni is the most famous.
>sabuktin and his fellows were all soldiers/high ranking in the samanid empire
I wouldn't call them part of the Samanid dynasty. Sabuktigin tried gaining independence but it wasn't until Ghazni that the Samanids deteriorated enough to do so.

* until Mahmud of Ghazni

where are you from? I am curious, are you OP? why make this bait thread?

It should actually go:

>Medes
>Persians (Achaemenids)
>Macedonians/Greeks
>Mauryans
>Parthians
>Persians (Sassanians)
>Kushans
>White Huns
>Persians (Sassanians)
>Arabs
>Persians (Tajiks i.e. Samanids)
>Turks
>Mongols
>Timurids
>Persians (Safavids + Afrashids/Nader Shah)
>Bongs

>cousins to eastern iranics, barely conquering
>see above
>yes
>greek ruler losing a battle and giving territory over for 50 years doesn't count
>parthians were eastern iranics too
>yes
>kushans were basically eastern iranics (yuezhi)
>white huns/hepthalites were literally proto-pashtuns (some groups, like the durranis)
>you said this one before
>only argument you can make is that we are now muslim, doesn't matter since we self-converted under the saffarids/samanids basically
>there ARE tajiks in afghanistan retard
>turkics conquered us yes, turkics btfo everyone though
>mongols btfo'd everyone
>mongols btfo'd everyone
>nader shah was not persian, neither were the safavids
>bongs got btfo in afghanistan

>cousins to eastern Iranics
What does that have to do with the fact they were still militarily subjugated by them?
>parthians were eastern iranics too
Who still conquered them again.
>Kushans were basically eastern iranics
Who still conquered them.
>white huns were literally proto-pashtuns
All we know about them is they were Iranics, who had ethnic Iranic names and followed a faith similar to Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, point was they still conquered Afghanistan.
>you said this one before
The Sassanians lost control of Afghanistan and parts of Khorosan after the Battle of Herat, later they took it back under Khosaru I who re subjugated it and broke the White Huns power base permanently. So technically yes they conquered it twice.
>self-converted
Nothing to do with being militarily taken over.
>tajiks in afghanistans
Yes, I know? Has nothing to do with the fact Tajiks are basically Persians who went out from the Iranian Plateau as colonizers and settlers into Khorasan, you dong.

Rest of your post is autism.

>They didn't even have a written language until the 16th century despite being stuck between Persia, China and India.
Modern Persian developed in the region of Khorasan which is mostly afghanistan, eastern iran and southern turkmenistan + tajikistan. Without several important dynasties like the samanids and the saffarids, as well as several poets from this region, persian would have gone extinct in favor of arabic.

If you're referring to pashtuns and pashto, you are correct, but even then, pashto descends from avestan and bactrian.

>persian would have gone extinct in favor of arabic
Persian survived due to the fact it was spoken by tens of millions of people at the time of the Persian Empire's collapse in their territories, while Arabic was not and Arab Caliphates needed Persians to administer and govern for them so no it wouldn't have.

>Has nothing to do with the fact Tajiks are basically Persians who went out from the Iranian Plateau as colonizers and settlers into Khorasan, you dong.
I am a tajik from panjshir, afghanistan, retard.

Tajiks are genetically closest to pashtuns in afghanistan. People referred to as tajiks today are persian, but really we are just eastern iranics who speak persian now, just like how in iran, most "persians" are groups like medes/parthians/northern irnaians who speak persian despite not being ethnically persian.

khorasan saved persian identity and language m8, the people of iran were happily accepting arabs and speaking arabic whereas the people in eastern iran and afghanistan stuck to persian

I didn't make the thread but I'm just clearing up some misinformation.

Most of the empires ITT had an impact on Afghanistan in some way or another and I think they they should be a treasured part of the countries legacy, regardless of whether they were or not Afghan.

>what is russia

most of them are native "afghan" though as I said, pashtuns and tajiks/persians are the most native, most of these groups were from those groups, or the ancestors of those groups

You can make the same argument op makes for any country, look I'll do one for Iran
>conquered by arabs
>conquered by greeks
>conquered by eastern iranian groups several times
>conquered and ruled by turkics for millenia
>conquered and ruled by mongols
>only relevant native dynasties were the achaemenids and sassanids

You are genetically closest today to them because both of your kinds are Turkic rape-babies with strong Mongoloid admixture.

the only turkic admixture people in afghanistan today are hazaras and uzbeks, turkmens too

tajiks in afghanistan do not look turkic, you are insane, in the civil war if anybody who looked like a flathead mongol came into our neighborhood we killed them

Attached: (you).png (645x729, 82K)

>the people of iran were happily accepting arabs and speaking arabic
Look there's no denying Persians living out further East had less influence from the Arabic language and the rise of the Samanid dynasty and Persian intermezzo period was extremely important in reviving Persian and native Iranian cultural identities again but saying Persians and Iranians in Western side were more "accepting" of Arabic is absolute nonsense and patently not true.
Maybe but Tajiks and Pashtuns still have more Mongoloid and Turkic admixture then any other Iranian people, you live in closer proximity to them then most other Iranians which is part of the reason.

There's a reason why Turkmens in Iran and Iraq still look like Mongoloids while in Afghanistan they blended in somewhat.

>being this dumb

>calling anyone a brainlet when you claimed Persians in Iran "welcomed Arabs"
Yeah that's why there was like a dozen Persian revolts in mainland Iran and Umar was assassinated in the first 50 years of the fall right?

>Maybe but Tajiks and Pashtuns still have more Mongoloid and Turkic admixture then any other Iranian people, you live in closer proximity to them then most other Iranians which is part of the reason.
Compared to iranians yes. Most iranians look like brown arabs or pajeets to me, does this make them arab or pajeet? no.

Genetic tests show anywhere from 0-5% turkic mixture for average tajik or pashtun, pic related is for pamiris who are similar to us

>There's a reason why Turkmens in Iran and Iraq still look like Mongoloids while in Afghanistan they blended in somewhat.
Ok now I know you are fucking shitposting, turkmen in places like iraq and syria look fucking arab, turkmen in afghanistan look like fucking uzbeks or hazaras.

I'm not the dumb picture poster but I did say iranians welcomed arabs, it's true, if iranians had any balls we would not be muslim today

Attached: populations_Pamiri_575.png (575x111, 6K)

>saying Persians and Iranians in Western side were more "accepting" of Arabic is absolute nonsense and patently not true.
Alright I will agree to this, but why are you spreading bullshit saying we are turkic?

>who speak persian despite not being ethnically persian.
if you or your parents speak persian you're persian.

That's true. But I think the bigger difference is Iran and Afghanistan's legacy is quite different.
It's like comparing the Romans to Ukraine.

>Tajik calling Persians "brown Arabs"
Irony.
>shitposting
Why do you lie? Does this look Middle Eastern to you? Do you have eyes or are just retarded to some high degree? Turkmens in Iran at the very least have been isolated for centuries from mixing up with ethnic Persians and other Iranians like Gilakis which is still why they look like they came out of yurt from the steppes of Mongolia.
>Pamiris
We are talking about (YOU), Tajiks.
>iranians welcomed arabs
You are literally retarded. Most of Eastern Iranians are muslims because your ancestors decided to become Muslims voluntarily while Persians were forced to. Funny how that works.

Attached: ew3234re.jpg (525x488, 218K)

>if a black man or his parents speak english you're english
That's not how it works. Persians are an ethnic group, just like Gilakis, Lurds, Kurds, etc...are their own. Speaking the language alone does not make you Persian, otherwise the Arabs of Khuzestan are ethnically Persian because they speak the language the state says is the official language of the country.

>if you or your parents speak persian you're persian.
Not ethnically. Ethnically it's impossible to tell who is persian, since only the fars tribe is persian. Ethno-linguistic group then yes, people descending from iranic groups who speak persian are persian.

I refuse to say I am persian, because every iranian I know looks like a manlet indian or like a saudi, and the ones I know that do not are from caspian or azeri area. If somebody asks where I am from, I say tajik from afghanistan.

The picture you posted is someone from tajikistan, if they were to go to afghanistan people would think they are a hazara, not a tajik.

We wouldn't be muslims if you guys stopped them tho

Turkmen in syria/iraq look like arabs ffs just search them up or watch a documentary on them.

not gonna lie you sound very autistic, people in eastern iran in places like mashhad and even in isfahan have a turkic/turanid vibe to them

speaking a language does not make you a ethnicity
what does it matter, Tajiks chose to become muslim, Persians didn't, you fuckers were sitting on the silk road and isolated from the worst of the arab conquest of Iran while the Persians were fighting for the better part of a century against the Byzantines and later Arab armies

at least we had Piruz the Caliaph remover

>only the fars tribe is persian
No they aren't. Ethnic Persians make up between 45% to 50% of Iran's population, the reason everyone speaks Persian in Iran primarily outside of Iranian Azerbaijan is because its the official language. Again, a black man or Indian can speak English, that does not make them ethnically or the same race as a white Anglo-Saxon in the US or UK or German, etc...
Not gonna lie you are retarded. I can't speak for Isfahan but I have been to Mashhad many times and you have zero idea of what you are talking about.

Moron, Persian is an ethno-linguistic group as the tajik afghan itt says. Someone from mashhad is going to be genetically more related to someone from herat than either are to other places in their respective countries. You realize the iranian plateau is a huge melting pot and that Persian is the go-to group for assimilation right? You seriously can't believe that a small group, the tribe from Pars genocided every other iranic group and replaced it.

>Again, a black man or Indian can speak English, that does not make them ethnically or the same race as a white Anglo-Saxon in the US or UK or German, etc
Just because a bunch of medes/parhtians/caspians started speaking persian, it doesn't make them persian

He won't understand that at all. He is probably a perso-fascist.

It's the empire breaker. BTFO Bongs, Russians, and America

The only moron is you with that retarded strawman. And agreeing with (You)rself isn't going to impress anyone. No one said anything about Persians genociding other Iranian ethnicity in Iran to begin with so why the fuck are you attacking me for something I didn't say or implicate? Secondly claiming Persian identity solely comes from speaking the language as if the genetic data doesn't exist for them is retarded.
Medes are literally Persians. Parthians might as well be Persians since Parthian Pahlavi is literally indistinguishable from Persian Pahlavi and the most lexicon you can find for it outside of that exists only in classical Armenian literature. Thirdly, Persians have always been the dominant ethnic group population wise in Iran since the Mede period, so get over it.

Nice (You) dude.

Imagine being as retarded as thinking this.

Medes and Parthians are not persian LMFAO

Holy shit I'm arguing with a braindead retard, by your retarded logic, bactrians, arachosians, etc. are also basically persians too.

The term you're looking for is iranic or iranian.

>cousins to iranic peoples, doesn't matter
That's not how this works.

Attached: 93eaee2abe27e468dcef2902daf5f053.jpg (858x990, 138K)

are persians cucks for letting themselves get conquered by medes/parthians? No, they are a cousin people and them getting conquered was barely anything worth speaking about

Guns are the great equalizer. Fuck. I hate the modern world

>Medes
They definitely are. What we know of their culture and identity is they spoke the same language as the Persians, and were only different in the fact they were fully settled while pre-Achaemenid dynasty Persians were still semi-nomadic you dumb fuck. Cyrus the Great's maternal grandfather was a Mede and so was his mother. They are only called "Medes" because they settled what became known as Media-Atropatene.
>braindead retard
>says this unironically while thinking Medes are any different from Persians
You are stupid.

Ok, can you just tell me who, in your opinion are "persians" then? Are farsi speakers (excluding the obvious hazaras and uzbeks) in afghanistan "persian" to you?

>Parthians have been completely dominated by Persian language, culture, customs, and warfare for thousands of years
>Parthian language is literally intelligble with Middle Persian
>Medes are literally just Persians who settled and urbanized first and all classical sources and fragmentary data tells us they are in no way separate from Anshan (Persians)
"Different"
You are the brainlet.

Tell me why you think Persian only exists as a language and why you can't rebuke examples proving your argument wrong about speaking a language and denying the genetic continuity between modern native ethnic Persian speakers with their pre-Islamic predecessors?

Imagine thinking that you can't change ethnicity.

Medes are at minimum definitely Persians. Herodotus and other historians from Greek and Roman sources even state the only difference between them and Persians is the Persians weren't settled while the Medes were. Even those guys know the Medes and Persians were otherwise the same people and divided into two different tribes. This isn't like claiming Sogdians or Bactarians are exactly the same as ethnic Persians.
All genetic studies have shown modern Persians are continuous with their predecessors, so no they really haven't. Might have something to do with the fact that 40 million or so Persians don't magically disappear over night.

Can you answer my question too then please?

Persian exists not as a sole ethnic group, someone from qom is going to have different descent from someone from isfahan man, this is just natural. IMO it's a ethno-linguistic group, sort of like how levantines are syrians/lebanese/palestinians who are all similar, but again, also all descend from different (but very similar) people. Do you see what I am getting at?

I never denied genetic continuity between modern persian speakers and pre-islamic predecessors, only racist wannabe aryans deny this. I even say shit to defend iranians sometimes saying that arabs left little genetic impact on them, so seeing someone like you spew vitriolic hatred like this makes me mad, who are you to spread falsehood and say a tajik is not a persian because they descend from other iranic groups, but then reverse and say that its ok medes/parthians count.

Are there genetic studies to the Medes and Parthians that confirms that they're identical to Persians?

Are farsi speakers (excluding the obvious hazaras and uzbeks) in afghanistan "persian" to you?
Yes, excluding pashtuns too.

>Persian exists not as a sole ethnic group
Then why do they still completely cluster the same with Pre-Islamic ethnic Persians who have little to no admixture from foreign settlers or conquerors? Persians are the dominant ETHNIC group in Iran because they are the most populated one. I can tell a Persian from a Gilaki or a Pashtun even if all three are speaking Persian, regardless of it being accented by being Farsi, Dari, or Tajik,. An Arab speaking Persian does not make them a Persian. So if we go by your logic, no ethnic group exists in the world period because someone else speaking said group's language would downgrade it to merely a "ethnolinguistic" one. Which is fucking silly.

Pretty sure there are for Medes and all contemporary historical sources say Persians and Medes are one in the same even when people like Herodotus and Justin say there are differences among different Iranian and Iranic tribes/peoples. Which makes sense since again for the third or fourth time now mentioning that the only big difference between pre-sedentary Persians and Medes was the latter was not nomadic while the former were, even the language they spoke was the same.

I didn't spew any hatred of other Iranics, I got mad when you claimed Persians were "welcoming" Arabs into Iran and gladly "dropping" Persian in favor of Arabic. Besides that, the argument then turned into basically some nonsense snowballing about how ethnic Persians don't exist any only people who speak Persian are a group which isn't really cool at all.

There is a lot of variation among persians man, in iran in the south they look like fucking saudis or indians, whereas in the north they look either turkish/arab/afghan-tajik tier, this is why I believe that they simply cannot descend from the same people.

You literally started saying that we are turkic admixed, started claiming all of our empires (like saffarids, samanids). Come on, there is some bias in your rhetoric.

In Southern Iran they are more olive-skinned because the far harsher heat and humidity and being around a literal desert environment. They do not look like Saudis or Indians at all. And northern Iran they do not look like Arabs or Turks at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. My mother's family comes from Mashhad, I have been to Tabriz, Tehran, Shiraz, Yazd, and most of the people in Northern and Central Iran are pretty fair skinned compared to Levantines.

That started when you or someone else denied the Sassanian Persians conquered Afghanistan, Tajikistan and most of western Khorasan twice after breaking the White Huns power for good in that area after losing it initially post Battle of Herat in the late 5th century.

come on...

Iranians vary a lot. It's the same with afghans too. In panjshir, people have beige skin and many people have light eyes or hair, but in somewhere like herat they have olive skin or brown, dark hair and don't have light eyes often.

Attached: A-Typical-Iranian-Weekend-Observation-of-an-Italian-girl-in-Isfahan-10.jpg (600x400, 99K)

we wuz aryans
we iz white and shiet

why do shitskins from the middle east do this

Attached: Alleged-picture-of-Ali-Sonboly-the-teen-gunman.jpg (1200x630, 75K)

Most people can't even identify Afghanistan on a map, including people who live there, probably. Not sure how they could ever be "overrated" when most people don't rate them all.

Iranians vary a lot because Iran has a large population and Iran has many different environments. Family of mine in Shiraz still has my dad's sisters with dirty blonde hair and fair skinned, my mom's family in Tehran and Mashhad look like they are Germanic while others in Tehran look Med. Either way none of that looks like what most Indians or Pakistanis look like much less Levant Arabs.

>women in the background
Fairly fair skinned.
>man in the background
Tanned but not even olive-skinned tier.
>man in the foreground on the left
Tanned still but nowhere swarty as what you find among most Arabs.
>man in the foreground on the right
Darker still, positively approaching swarthy yes.
Hello kuso.

Come on. There are definitely many iranians that look like they can be from saudi arabia or pakistan. And no, it's not just balochis like you will claim in your next post.

Attached: 2iqy0ie.jpg (600x350, 28K)

All of them look Germanic compared to the average pajeet or Ayyrab.

kek
ok khuda hafiz, roze khush mikhayamet

Saudis aren't a race and Arabs are even more bastardized anthropologically speaking than anyone in the Near East as some "Arab" speakers are not real Semitics and just adopted the language and not genetically related to ethnic Arabs from Yemen/Arabia.

Rumi > Ferdowsi > Hafez

do you not speak farsi? are you just larping? I literally said good bye and wished you a good day

most iranians end up looking turkish or armenian anyways, not germanic.

arabs aren't heterogeneous. you get indian tier arabs from the peninsula while you get med looking ones from the levant.

Do people in Afghanistan even think of themselves as being part of a country? I always thought of it as being like the wild west, not really any government except on the local level.

I know you said mate.

>most iranians end up looking
>turkish
They do not.
>armenian
They do not. Armenians are ironically the only ethnic group in the Near East besides Jews who can only be isolated as an ethnicity due to their language due to the disparity in their genetics, even Assyrians today are closer to ancient Armenians then modern Armenians are. So no.
>arabs aren't heterogeneous
I already said that.
>med looking ones from the levant
Because they aren't Semites in the first place. Either way native Persians are on an order of magnitude fair skinned for the most part in relation to their total population then most Arab speakers are.