Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 105

Thread: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

  1. #61

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    "Turkic" is an ethnolinguistic term. Alans and sarmatians were of iranian stock, while they could just aswell be turkic (they probably weren't, but still...).


  2. #62

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    With your best efforts my friends to convince CA for changing the culture and ethnic of the Sarmatians and Roxolans and Alansi think their current present is not so bad!
    Imagine what would be happen if CA gonna make them Persianize?!
    You would probably see them wearing turbans and having clean shaved faces with light brown skins!!!!!!!
    I think at least their current present is far more better than what would be if CA convert them to iranians!
    Our great god AHURA MAZDA demands:
    "Good thoughts of the mind, Good deeds of the hand, and Good words of the tongue"


  3. #63

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    If they were made looking like modern day Persians, there will still be people complaining and I am sure that depiction is just as wrong. Sarmatians indeed had substantial Mongoloid admixture depending on the region. p92 "Raciology" by Vladmir Avdeyev.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NHdyAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92

    And I don't think they look too Mongoloid in the game. If that looks Mongoloid to you then the real Samartians may look Mongoloid to you too.

  4. #64

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    They were predominately a mix of Altai and Oghur Turk. The way they are presented is pretty much how they would have looked.

    Remember the modern Turks look nothing like their ancestors because they are not predominately Turkish, they're called Tyrks.
    What the hell is a Tyrk ? I might have genes from 77 different ethnicities, all over from Europe to Afghanistan, but all the matters is ethnicity and language passed down from my ancestors, what else can I call myself, I probably have genes from a lot of different ethnicities as I said.

    http://defence.pk/attachments/4d9f86...ae-jpg.119314/

    This is my great great uncle still living in our paternal village.
    Last edited by Tureuki; February 18, 2015 at 02:04 AM.

  5. #65
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by baiyaan View Post
    Sarmatians indeed had substantial Mongoloid admixture depending on the region. p92 "Raciology" by Vladmir Avdeyev.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NHdyAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92

    And I don't think they look too Mongoloid in the game. If that looks Mongoloid to you then the real Samartians may look Mongoloid to you too.
    That's the thing. We are not discussing the Scythians in the Altai, Urals, or other places of Central Asia, but rather the Alans that inhabited the Black Sea region. These are the Sarmatians that are present in the game, and kurgan remains in the region have proven that the people were of European appearance. Their appearance in the game is completely East Asian and hints to Turanist whitewashing.
    Last edited by Darios; February 18, 2015 at 02:38 AM.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  6. #66

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    ... Their appearance in the game is completely East Asian and hints to Turanist whitewashing.
    LOL Do you also fantasize that Turanists may have stolen your lunch money???

  7. #67

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by KLAssurbanipal View Post
    Why Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) are Asians (Mongoloid)?

    Sarmatians were Iranian tribes of Indo-European origin.

    I don't understand why CA made them as Mongoloid type, as previously in Rome 2 done them correctly.

    Alan units from Attila:





    Roxolani and some other minor steppe factions are copied of Huns:



    Roxolani in Rome 2:



    Sarmatians from Column of Traian:

    LOL ... so true ...

    They ignore that most of the Actual Asia was populated with European looking people befoure the mongols .
    Even the Tocharians that lived in the modern Xinjiiang were described having light eyes and hair color with caucasoid appearence.

    ------CONAN TRAILER--------
    RomeII Realistic Heights mod
    Arcani
    I S S G A R D
    Creator of Ran no Jidai mod
    Creator of Res Gestae
    Original Creator of severall add ons on RTW from grass to textures and Roman Legions
    Oblivion Modder- DUNE creator
    Fallout 3 Modder
    2005-2006 Best modder , skinner , modeler awards winner.
    actually modding skyrim [/SIZE]

  8. #68
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    The Sabirs were Hunnic so I see no problem with that actually.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Actually Rurik dynasty is thought to have been of N1-TatC lineage that ultimately arose in East Asia(Y-chromosome).
    Many mesolithic Eastern Europeans had definitive East Asian MtDNA such as C and D. Dg1 was found even in a Roman grave.
    More than 50 percent of Finns and a large percentage of Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians and Russians carry Y-haplo N-TatC.
    All these were way before Mongols.

    Moreover Europeans, even Neolithic ones, were very different looking from modern populations. Europe as recent as 4500 years ago(yes when there was already a dynasty in Egypt) was a multi-racial melting pot. It is just that those races were different from the races of today.
    Light skin did not become prevalent in Europe until well into the Neolithic or even Bronze ages. There were light skinned people further Eastward toward the steppes but even for these people light skin was a mutation that arose relatively recently < 10000 years.

    If you want to become all sentimental about the glorious past of the White race that was immensely wronged by inscrutable "orientals", you should do it in your own bed. And stay there.
    Last edited by baiyaan; February 18, 2015 at 07:09 AM.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Dudes ...I doubt that you understand what you're reading . This topic arent argued avarage western boys and smarmy persians. All of them are a small Ataoulf... You are turanist bla bla. You are humanist,liberal? :d I argue on historic, gneitc source for hours on end. But you believe it as religion..loss of time

  11. #71

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Exactly how many sarmatian corpses were actually tested? I mean, we all know DNA can last many hundred years, surely someone would have their mithochondrial DNA tested. Now, if you don't format your posts and also add sources NO ONE will care to even read your point.


  12. #72
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    One of my favorite books as a child was "The Sarmatians, 600 BC - AD 450" in which page 12 clearly says: Like the Scythians, Sarmatians were of a white or Caucasoid appearance and before the arrival of the Huns few were thought to have had Asiatic or Turco-Mongol features.

    Another book I have, Anthropological Data on the Question of the Great Migration of Peoples: Avars and Sarmatians (by Todt and Firschstein) says that: "The Sarmatians as a whole are related to the Great Europoid race. A very small portion of the skulls of Sarmatians from burials are characterized by the traits of the Mongoloid race (21%) or by mixed Mongoloid-Europoid (10%)"

    That's just what I've read on it. I wish that I could post images and illustrations from the former on here (but I think that TWC has a thing against Osprey images) but feel free to search for them on Google and you'll get an idea of how Sarmatians looked. I think that it would be fair to portray the Sarmatian units in game like that, a mixed group of models - largely European but with Asiatic looking troops sprinkled among them as well.
    Last edited by Darios; February 18, 2015 at 02:06 PM.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  13. #73

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    One of my favorite books as a child was "The Sarmatians, 600 BC - AD 450" in which page 12 clearly says: Like the Scythians, Sarmatians were of a white or Caucasoid appearance and before the arrival of the Huns few were thought to have had Asiatic or Turco-Mongol features.

    Another book I have, Anthropological Data on the Question of the Great Migration of Peoples: Avars and Sarmatians (by Todt and Firschstein) says that: "The Sarmatians as a whole are related to the Great Europoid race. A very small portion of the skulls of Sarmatians from burials are characterized by the traits of the Mongoloid race (21%) or by mixed Mongoloid-Europoid (10%)"

    That's just what I've read on it. I wish that I could post images and illustrations from the former on here (but I think that TWC has a thing against Osprey images) but feel free to search for them on Google and you'll get an idea of how Sarmatians looked. I think that it would be fair to portray the Sarmatian units in game like that, a mixed group of models - largely European but with Asiatic looking troops sprinkled among them as well.
    Are just Indo -Aryans caucasoid? Is Björk mongolid or caucsoid? All Caucasoid İndo -Aryan? Turco -mongol term is dead. Becasue Altaic Lang Theory is dead. Turks are different stock from Mongol, Uralic-Fins_Ugric All of them are diffrent stock..

  14. #74

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Altaic language theory is dead? Turkic stock different to mongol (btw, the only difference between both is language)? You'd better post the sources as you are trying to debunk the status quo here.


  15. #75
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Mr. Cagatay Khan, here is an article where you can read about the connection between the Scytho-Sarmatian languages, Old Iranian, Persian, and Modern Ossetian:

    http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh3_2.html

    I can even give you a simple example that I know myself - "Good Day" in Alanic was - dæ ban xʷærz. Regarding "Jassic" the language of Sarmatian Jassic people who settled in Hungary, a medieval glossary (from 1422) was found of their language in a library in Budapest where the expression da ban horz was found. Today Ossetians use Da bōn xōrz and Da bōn xwārz to express this.

    Here is another work by Yablonsky (whom you cited earlier in this thread) where he makes numerous passages to the Sarmatians being predominately Europoid - http://www.csen.org/Pubs_Sales_Revie...88579-00-2.pdf

    I know that you will not look and post more halopgroup crap so I'll cite some passages for you:

    page 238 - In the eastern Pamir Mountains, the homogeneous Saka population were dolichocephalic Europoids with narrow and very high faces.

    page 245 - In general, all of the skulls are dolichocephalic, with relatively broad and low faces, low orbits, and sharply profiled facial fetures. During the Bronze Age this physical type was characteristic of the western steppes populations, occupying the areas north of the Caspian and Black seas. Conditionally, we will call this type "Western"

    Nowhere do I see any argument for them being Turkic. It seems to me that the Sarmatians were Indo-European speakers with Europoid features who originally inhabited deep into Eastern Central Asia. It seems that they spent centuries throwing themselves against settled communities (Europe and India) and the migration period would be the last time when Indo-European nomads (Alans/Sarmatians and the Sveta Huna in India would invade the settled world and after the Hunnic invasions, all new invaders (Avari, Kipchaks, Khazars, etc) would be Turkic with an increasingly predominant Asiatic complexion. Until you can show me anything academic arguing against this then I will see further attempts to argue against this as nothing short of ahistorical trolling.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  16. #76

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    Mr. Cagatay Khan, here is an article where you can read about the connection between the Scytho-Sarmatian languages, Old Iranian, Persian, and Modern Ossetian:

    http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh3_2.html

    I can even give you a simple example that I know myself - "Good Day" in Alanic was - dæ ban xʷærz. Regarding "Jassic" the language of Sarmatian Jassic people who settled in Hungary, a medieval glossary (from 1422) was found of their language in a library in Budapest where the expression da ban horz was found. Today Ossetians use Da bōn xōrz and Da bōn xwārz to express this.

    Here is another work by Yablonsky (whom you cited earlier in this thread) where he makes numerous passages to the Sarmatians being predominately Europoid - http://www.csen.org/Pubs_Sales_Revie...88579-00-2.pdf

    I know that you will not look and post more halopgroup crap so I'll cite some passages for you:

    page 238 - In the eastern Pamir Mountains, the homogeneous Saka population were dolichocephalic Europoids with narrow and very high faces.

    page 245 - In general, all of the skulls are dolichocephalic, with relatively broad and low faces, low orbits, and sharply profiled facial fetures. During the Bronze Age this physical type was characteristic of the western steppes populations, occupying the areas north of the Caspian and Black seas. Conditionally, we will call this type "Western"

    Nowhere do I see any argument for them being Turkic. It seems to me that the Sarmatians were Indo-European speakers with Europoid features who originally inhabited deep into Eastern Central Asia. It seems that they spent centuries throwing themselves against settled communities (Europe and India) and the migration period would be the last time when Indo-European nomads (Alans/Sarmatians and the Sveta Huna in India would invade the settled world and after the Hunnic invasions, all new invaders (Avari, Kipchaks, Khazars, etc) would be Turkic with an increasingly predominant Asiatic complexion. Until you can show me anything academic arguing against this then I will see further attempts to argue against this as nothing short of ahistorical trolling.
    Simple truth .

    ------CONAN TRAILER--------
    RomeII Realistic Heights mod
    Arcani
    I S S G A R D
    Creator of Ran no Jidai mod
    Creator of Res Gestae
    Original Creator of severall add ons on RTW from grass to textures and Roman Legions
    Oblivion Modder- DUNE creator
    Fallout 3 Modder
    2005-2006 Best modder , skinner , modeler awards winner.
    actually modding skyrim [/SIZE]

  17. #77

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    Mr. Cagatay Khan, here is an article where you can read about the connection between the Scytho-Sarmatian languages, Old Iranian, Persian, and Modern Ossetian:

    http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh3_2.html

    I can even give you a simple example that I know myself - "Good Day" in Alanic was - dæ ban xʷærz. Regarding "Jassic" the language of Sarmatian Jassic people who settled in Hungary, a medieval glossary (from 1422) was found of their language in a library in Budapest where the expression da ban horz was found. Today Ossetians use Da bōn xōrz and Da bōn xwārz to express this.

    Here is another work by Yablonsky (whom you cited earlier in this thread) where he makes numerous passages to the Sarmatians being predominately Europoid - http://www.csen.org/Pubs_Sales_Revie...88579-00-2.pdf

    I know that you will not look and post more halopgroup crap so I'll cite some passages for you:

    page 238 - In the eastern Pamir Mountains, the homogeneous Saka population were dolichocephalic Europoids with narrow and very high faces.

    page 245 - In general, all of the skulls are dolichocephalic, with relatively broad and low faces, low orbits, and sharply profiled facial fetures. During the Bronze Age this physical type was characteristic of the western steppes populations, occupying the areas north of the Caspian and Black seas. Conditionally, we will call this type "Western"

    Nowhere do I see any argument for them being Turkic. It seems to me that the Sarmatians were Indo-European speakers with Europoid features who originally inhabited deep into Eastern Central Asia. It seems that they spent centuries throwing themselves against settled communities (Europe and India) and the migration period would be the last time when Indo-European nomads (Alans/Sarmatians and the Sveta Huna in India would invade the settled world and after the Hunnic invasions, all new invaders (Avari, Kipchaks, Khazars, etc) would be Turkic with an increasingly predominant Asiatic complexion. Until you can show me anything academic arguing against this then I will see further attempts to argue against this as nothing short of ahistorical trolling.
    As every man with a little knowledge of history knows its a known fact that sarmatians and specially Alans were from proto iranian(Indo-European) origin and arguing about their turkic being is just a recently created myth!
    So i think we are done here please don't get far off from the topic and let us just speak for their presence in Attila TW and not about boring things that just can bring some endless blah blah blah and headaches!
    Thanks to all of you
    Last edited by Ariamanesh; February 19, 2015 at 11:50 PM.
    Our great god AHURA MAZDA demands:
    "Good thoughts of the mind, Good deeds of the hand, and Good words of the tongue"


  18. #78
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Coventry, England, UK, Europe.
    Posts
    1,048

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    I often find that those obsessed with the appearance of long dead peoples are up to no good in the present.
    If I had to choose between betraying my friends and betraying my country, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country.

  19. #79
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    I often find that those obsessed with the appearance of long dead peoples are up to no good in the present.
    Would you say the same if CA put the Romans in hoplite armor and gave them black African skin because they lived "somewhere in the Mediterranean?" This analogy is essentially the treatment CA gave the Sarmatians in Attila.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  20. #80

    Default Re: Sarmatians (eg. Roxolani, Alans) should be Indo-European, not Mongoloid

    Quote Originally Posted by Darios View Post
    Would you say the same if CA put the Romans in hoplite armor and gave them black African skin because they lived "somewhere in the Mediterranean?" This analogy is essentially the treatment CA gave the Sarmatians in Attila.
    You hit the bull's eye mate

    I can't wait for a mod to fix this mess, at least with the current playable factions.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •