Corrections: - Achaemenids never reached as far as the Danube, at Scythia Minor (now Dobruja) they mainly hugged the coast - Mazaca (now Kayseri) was autonomous and not part of Achaemenids proper I somewhat rushed this video, so I expected as much, but the general image should be accurate
Prior to Sintashta… Yamnaya culture around 4000 BCE is the source including the domestication of horses in the Pontic-Caspian region. Yamnaya invaded Europe around 3000 BCE and the mixture called Corded Ware came back East transforming into Fatyanovo-Balanova; (2800 BCE) -> Abashevo; (2200 BCE) -> Sintashta; (2100-1900 BCE) -> Andronovo; (1900-1700 BCE) -> Indo-Aryans.
from my research, i was given the impression that it was decentralized, with multiple kings and very little permanent settlements (thats why darius had a hard time conquering stuff up there and had to turn back, they were running out of supplies and couldnt pillage any)
The Achaemenids never conquered the tribes in the north, even Xenophon records these independent tribes in Anabasis, Darius only invaded these lands while attacking Scythia but called off the campaign because it was going no where, they never intended to conquer the Getai.
@@1_rma The first is Xenophon, a second-hand Greek source, in Persepolis, made by Darius himself, who says I am the Scythian kings beyond the waters, and even more recently a relic of Darius the Great has been found at Phanagoria
@@AuuaysIeowpwp Even though Herodotus mentions an inscription, there is no evidence of the Achaemenids asserting control there, aswell as the fact it was most likely from his failed Scythian campaign. One inscription does not equal control, satrapies like Carmania was indepdent by 400 because of their absence in many tax forms. Thus there would be mentions of Romania as a province/satrapy which there is none.
@@Nastya_07 No, bro, they are Indo European, the Kushans are from the Tocharis, and according to reliable sources such as Oxford and... they are of Indo European and Iranian descent
@@AuuaysIeowpwp If Indo-Iranian is the same as Indo-European then you could call the Roman Empire an Indo-Iranian empire, see? It makes no sense. Indo-Iranian is a branch of Indo-European just like Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian, Hellenic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and the extinct Anatolian and Tocharian branches.
Well yes average indian score like 5-15℅ steppe anscestry depending upon your caste and location within india , but indo euroupean family isnt a Race groups but an ethno linguist group , iranians also have majority of there blood non indo euroupean. , groups like pamiris have more like 40% which is more higher than other iranic groups. Iranians from plateu dont even have their haplogroups of R1a which is associated with the spread of aryans/iranians.
@@sahilsingh6048 Yes Iranians are mostly indigenous middle eastern. They mostly carry J2. The ethnic groups with the highest steppe dna live around Central Asia.
well, not the mitanni, they had indo-aryan rulers (provably true due to linguistic analysis) that ruled over a hurrian population (which i assume you think is armenian, which i will concede is kinda true)
Corrections:
- Achaemenids never reached as far as the Danube, at Scythia Minor (now Dobruja) they mainly hugged the coast
- Mazaca (now Kayseri) was autonomous and not part of Achaemenids proper
I somewhat rushed this video, so I expected as much, but the general image should be accurate
cuteness overload!!!
Prior to Sintashta…
Yamnaya culture around 4000 BCE is the source including the domestication of horses in the Pontic-Caspian region. Yamnaya invaded Europe around 3000 BCE and the mixture called Corded Ware came back East transforming into Fatyanovo-Balanova; (2800 BCE) -> Abashevo; (2200 BCE) -> Sintashta; (2100-1900 BCE) -> Andronovo; (1900-1700 BCE) -> Indo-Aryans.
yamnaya i consider to be general indo-european
Great video, but Scythians shouldnt be shown as a state? Many historians were always describing it like empire/kingdom, state of scythians and etc.
from my research, i was given the impression that it was decentralized, with multiple kings and very little permanent settlements (thats why darius had a hard time conquering stuff up there and had to turn back, they were running out of supplies and couldnt pillage any)
What of the Kingdoms/Kings of the Avesta I don't think you show them.
You didn’t make the Danube comment yet
you said that as i did it rip me
very 😎
When did Zarathustra emerge?
How much mixing happened between these guys and the Uralic groups?
Achaemenid conquered all Anatolia and in Dariush the great Scythian camping Achaemenid conquered Crimea and Romania
The Achaemenids never conquered the tribes in the north, even Xenophon records these independent tribes in Anabasis, Darius only invaded these lands while attacking Scythia but called off the campaign because it was going no where, they never intended to conquer the Getai.
@@1_rma The first is Xenophon, a second-hand Greek source, in Persepolis, made by Darius himself, who says I am the Scythian kings beyond the waters, and even more recently a relic of Darius the Great has been found at Phanagoria
@@1_rma Also, Herodotus wrote in his book that there is an inscription related to Darius in Gherla, Romania
@@AuuaysIeowpwp Even though Herodotus mentions an inscription, there is no evidence of the Achaemenids asserting control there, aswell as the fact it was most likely from his failed Scythian campaign. One inscription does not equal control, satrapies like Carmania was indepdent by 400 because of their absence in many tax forms. Thus there would be mentions of Romania as a province/satrapy which there is none.
@@1_rma As I said, Persepolis was mentioned as the Scythians on the other side of the water, aslo do research on the Achaemenid palace at Phanagoria.
And pls added tocharian and yuezhi, aslo Scythians had taken from Altai to Poland
The Tocharians were not Indo-Iranian, they were a separate group of Indo-Europeans which originated from an earlier migration.
@@Nastya_07 No, bro, they are Indo European, the Kushans are from the Tocharis, and according to reliable sources such as Oxford and... they are of Indo European and Iranian descent
@@AuuaysIeowpwp I said that the Tocharians were Indo-European, but they were not from the Indo-Iranian branch, they belonged to their own branch.
@@Nastya_07 There is no difference between Indo-Iranian and Indo-European, in any case it is better to be in this video because they form the Kushans
@@AuuaysIeowpwp If Indo-Iranian is the same as Indo-European then you could call the Roman Empire an Indo-Iranian empire, see? It makes no sense.
Indo-Iranian is a branch of Indo-European just like Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian, Hellenic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and the extinct Anatolian and Tocharian branches.
they call me the pamplemousse
Indian and bangladeshis barely have any Aryan steppe DNA though
Well yes average indian score like 5-15℅ steppe anscestry depending upon your caste and location within india , but indo euroupean family isnt a Race groups but an ethno linguist group , iranians also have majority of there blood non indo euroupean. , groups like pamiris have more like 40% which is more higher than other iranic groups. Iranians from plateu dont even have their haplogroups of R1a which is associated with the spread of aryans/iranians.
@@sahilsingh6048 Yes Iranians are mostly indigenous middle eastern. They mostly carry J2. The ethnic groups with the highest steppe dna live around Central Asia.
Based
Bruh Achaemenid empire bigger than this
the urartians and mittani were not scythians they were the earliest form of armenian
they were subjects of scythia in the 600s BCE
well, not the mitanni, they had indo-aryan rulers (provably true due to linguistic analysis) that ruled over a hurrian population (which i assume you think is armenian, which i will concede is kinda true)
The Mitanni state was an Indian conquest state, with Urartians being the conquered.
🇮🇷+🇮🇳=thus vidio
that's pretty cool but i am still trying to find the person who asked
i did
the indo aryan