They were literally like this >and then the savage elamites ruined everything >and then the uncivilised akkadians ruined everything >and the the gutian Black folk ruined everything
Etc
2 years ago
Anonymous
>changes his own premise
so true!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gutians were worthless. Elamites were ok. Akkadians were based
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh my god, great tier ranking kind stranger, i wish i could give this post a gold account!
>then all distinction vanished
no, youre just trying to garble what
they didnt make a distinction between themselves and semites, but they considered the egyptians and akkadians as a very dignified people
said to create your own little narrative here, fact is, they didnt make any distinction with "semites" in the first place, their relation with, say, akkadians, was different with canaanites and arameans
It does seem they were. It seems that sumer was conquered (by Sargon of Akkad) and a long slow decline followed until it ceased to be civilized and turned into hunter gatherers. The more familiar mesopotamia arose after an unknown period, likely a century later.
Babylon has always been remembered as a horrible confused place (the word "babble" may come from the name) even while its location was long unknown until the 19th century when its ruins were rediscovered.
Semites were barbars who migrated into Sumeria, established their kingdoms, and became somewhat civilized.
they didnt make a distinction between themselves and semites, but they considered the egyptians and akkadians as a very dignified people
There’s literally no people sumerians didn’t like they saw themselves as the only civilised person
sure bud
They were literally like this
>and then the savage elamites ruined everything
>and then the uncivilised akkadians ruined everything
>and the the gutian Black folk ruined everything
Etc
>changes his own premise
so true!
Gutians were worthless. Elamites were ok. Akkadians were based
oh my god, great tier ranking kind stranger, i wish i could give this post a gold account!
At first terribly, then fine, then all distinction vanished along with the Sumerian language.
>then all distinction vanished
no, youre just trying to garble what
said to create your own little narrative here, fact is, they didnt make any distinction with "semites" in the first place, their relation with, say, akkadians, was different with canaanites and arameans
read Sumerian Swindle Vol 1
im on page 9 and there are 2 spelling errors
kek
The most likely interpretation seems that semites first conquered, then completely destroyed sumer with their crazy incompetent rule.
Akkadians and their Assyrian and Babylonian descendants weren't incompetent
>Assyrians
>Babylonians
>not incompetent
>smugly asserts opinion without making a case for it
>t. bucked by them
It does seem they were. It seems that sumer was conquered (by Sargon of Akkad) and a long slow decline followed until it ceased to be civilized and turned into hunter gatherers. The more familiar mesopotamia arose after an unknown period, likely a century later.
Babylon has always been remembered as a horrible confused place (the word "babble" may come from the name) even while its location was long unknown until the 19th century when its ruins were rediscovered.
I don't know where you get that from.
>semites conquered...
Seems ridiculous already
damn, now THAT looks like a king who could wrestle lions bare-handed
>Seems ridiculous already
>built by persians, non arabs, and arabized people
cope
Rimush the son of Sargon genocided the Sumerians.
Sumeria was invaded by the barbarian hill people and they ruled it for a couple of centuries.
They ruled for less than a century some records say 4 years even before getting YEETed by Sumerians
Both were based as frick and in end Sumerians were melted into Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians.
Nobody gets along with semites
>Semites
didnt exist 6000 years ago when sumeria was a thing.
They didn't that is how sumeria died