Aryan counterattack hypothesis

Status
Closed
Jun 2019
350
ru
It's considered that IE were "agressive" and "expansive". But, for example, ancient greecs said that Scythians just drunk milk of horses before assyrian agression. Assyrian agression made Skyphians great wariors, they awakened in them rage.

So, aryans were peaceful.

If paleoeuropeans peoples was farmers(that is considered so), they need for fertile soil. So, the IE area was attractive for them, especially since they were much more fertile soils than their own

So, paleoeuropeans could go to aryan earth for colonisation, just like Assyrians.
Having defended their lands, the Aryans could go west to establish their power there, in order to avoid a repetition of aggression from the west.

The system of moral of Aryans not agressive, mythologia talks about defence from enslavers of cows, waters and people, meet-eaters, cunning snake and so on.

They could not be agressive. They Noble warriors, but not enslavers.

There was not slavery in the East at all.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2018
1,034
UK
It's considered that IE were "agressive" and "expansive". But, for example, ancient greecs said that
Scythians just drunk milk of horses before assyrian agression. Assyrian agression made Skyphians great wariors, they awakened in them rage.

So, aryans were peaceful.
Let's break this down.
1) Considered aggressive by whom? Nobody in their right mind would attribute a personality trait to entire race/culture than spanned continents and millennia.
2) Some ancient Greeks, who had in general rather little contact with Scythians, made a statement about some Scythians. Perhaps we shouldn't take this as absolute evidence about what every Scythian (or, you are hinting, the even larger grouping called Aryans) was like.
3) A war between Assyrians and some Scythians somehow changed the personality of every Scythian for centuries to come?

Honestly, I couldn't read any further, because I'm assuming this is just trolling. A bunch of barely related sentence that treats huge groups of people spanning hundreds of years and thousands miles treated as a single monotonic entity with a single personality? This reads like bad fantasy where an evil wizard mind controls orcs to attack the elves or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,690
Australia
Another thinly veiled Aryan// Russian 'patriotic' ( to put it nicely ) un-historical outburst .
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,690
Australia
Generally. The "IE-expansion" considered by default

Absolutely. They became warriors in spirit and culture, spawned the greatest military technology

Changing the quote box AGAIN ? And just as you are coming off a suspension from your last fiasco .

You must have a 'death wish' .
 
Mar 2018
1,034
UK
Generally. The "IE-expansion" considered by default

Absolutely. They became warriors in spirit and culture, spawned the greatest military technology
Wait, are you picturing IE-expansion as some Genghis-Khan style horde conquering most of two continents in one fell swoop? Theories suggest they took some 2000 years to do this. It wasn't a bloody conquest, nobody outside of a possible Hollywood studio would picture it this way. So there's no need to invent some scenario where peaceful herders were triggered into a world wide invasion.

But, considering you've falsified a quote and are peddling some nationalistic feel-good story, I look forward to your permaban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8
Jun 2019
350
ru
It wasn't a bloody conquest,
A few days ago I put forward such a hypothesis (peaceful resettlement), it was accepted with hostility here.
But this is another hipothesis: "counterattack"

Because of your provocative statements, I stop communicating with you
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,022
Europix
A few days ago I put forward such a hypothesis (peaceful resettlement), it was accepted with hostility here.
But this is another hipothesis: "counterattack"

Because of your provocative statements, I stop communicating with you
Grammaticq, it isn't about hostility, really.

We are used with hypothesis, even odd ones, but we are also used with arguments, sources, facts. Simply saying "it's my opinion", "I believe it" isn't enough.

You advanced way too many personal thoughts with practically no base. Honestly, it will never work for You or anyone else like that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: specul8
Jun 2019
350
ru
with arguments, sources, facts
For a person versed in this matter, these facts are self-evident. Which of the theses dobtful for you? I will prove everything that is listed based on real sources, not on “textbooks” and “studies”, but on real historical monuments
 
Status
Closed