I begin;
1. and Neolithic Europe matriarchal era
2. The Celts Were Mostly Redheads
3. the Spartans were very skilled warriors
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Name the most larp historical myths that you know
wtf? Dumb keyboard
I meant "Neolithic Europe was matriarchal"
MC1R reaches 40% in some parts of scotland, its safe to say celts had high frequency of the red hair gene
Scotland was a very peripheral area of the Celtic world and not in any way typical.
>the Spartans were very skilled warriors
They kinda were; but not to the level of legend
Also
>the romans fought in testudo formation
>iron is stronger than bronze
>iron is stronger than bronze
this is is a "well ackshually it's steel that's better than bronze not iron" thing, isn't it
Steel isn't necessarely better
than bronze either unless it's properly quenched
no
not even close
the Spartans were lazy and poor fighters. one of the worst in Greece
no they weren't. although that was mainly because all the Greeks sucked. luckily for them the Persians sucked even harder. basically every sucked up until Philip of Macedon improved on Theban innovations.
This doesn't really change what I said
The Greeks in general, whether bad or not, does not refute that the Spartans were terrible warriors.
and besides, they sided with Persia anyway...
and his training was not in itself warrior.
The Romans had no problems
They absolutely were better than their counterparts, what kind of nu-his glue are you huffing? Sure they played politics, you have to when you're neighboring the likes of Athens and Th*b*s, but they also took their actual training seriously. Maybe a little too seriously, until they decayed like many warrior aristocracies have for reasons that are easy to guess. They had some kickass oneliners too, but the Romans were by no means any worse in either field.
They were slightly better than other greeks, who were solid for the time. Compared to real soldiers they were terrible. Greek "training" meant going to the gym. When they went up against professional soldiers they lost hard
>when they went up professional soldiers
There weren't that many professional soldiers who could beat Sparta pound per pound. There weren't any, until the Thebans got good enough.
>not to the level of legend
Remove [[[Athenian]]] tales and they performed even better than most think.
The Spartans produced some excellent warriors, but the key word there is 'some'. Sparta was a land of disarmed Helots ruled by a small warrior elite. This warrior elite was highly disciplined and capable, but as time went on they became irrelevant because the Spartans remained just a small warrior elite while other city-states focused on fielding as many regular soldiers and ships as possible.
This goes into a broader issue with World War II. People like to talk about Stalingrad, Kursk, Normandy, the Ardennes, et cetera as turning points in the war, but in reality there was no way for Germany to win the war once the Soviet Union and the United States were in. People vastly underestimate the degree to which the Germans were outproduced by the Soviet Union and the United States, not just in terms of armored fighting vehicles but in terms of locomotives, trucks, cars, motorcycles, towing and utility vehicles, communication and command vehicles, fuel, bombs, shells, and a hundred other types of items. You can see this if you visit basically any war museum in Europe. There'll be a German section with a tank or two, a motorcycle, some artillery, an MG42, a towed field kitchen and maybe a Kettenkrad or an Open Blitz if you're lucky. And then there'll be an American section. There you'll Sherman tanks in all kinds of configurations, from regular combat tanks to minesweepers, bulldozers, or even moveable hydraulic bridges. You'll also find ambulances, fully stocked kitchen trucks with fridge trailers, large cargo and fuel trucks from five or six different manufacturers, amphibious vehicles, artillery for all kinds of purposes with shells to match and, if you're lucky, a freshly polished P-51 hanging from the ceiling above you.
As the story goes, the Americans in Sicily and Normandy were shocked to find the feared Germans using mules to move equipment around, while the Germans were demoralized when they saw what the Americans brought ashore.
While alive, Jesus of Nazareth was not considered a marginal cult leader
>the Wermacht was mostly motorised/mechanised.
>3. the Spartans were very skilled warriors
in fairness this was believed heavily long before it became historical. their inflated rep was real.
>Czechs are German
>Spain is Visigothic
>Teutonic crusades were targeting Slavs
>Hitler was a gnostic
>Americans landed on the Moon
crusades were targeting Slavs
Maybe not at first but eventually they started attacking Poland and Lithuania (it was actually Slavic speaking)
. the Scythians were red-haired
. Vikings wore armor and swords
. the Mycenaeans spoke an Indo-European language
. the yamnaya used swords
>. the Mycenaeans spoke an Indo-European language
Isn't linear B language confirmed to be an old Greek language?
Yes, if anything the myth is that Linear A ISN'T Indo-European. The truth is we just don't know what the Minoans spoke.
there are two theories;
that of invasion/imposition from the north and the theory of evolution/transformation within Greece, obviously suffering legacies from outside, but still, it was mainly EEF, and not "Indo-European"
but this forum bans me whenever I talk about it.
Although many scholars place this transition during the Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III period (c. 2400-2200/2100 BC), some more recent assessments, such as that of John E. Coleman, argue for an earlier entry of speakers Proto-Greeks on the Greek Peninsula, as early as the end of the 4th millennium BC (c. 3200 BC).
>. and Neolithic Europe matriarchal era
True
>The Celts Were Mostly Redheads
False, Celts do have a high frequency of red hair that was even higher in the past.
>the Spartans were very skilled warriors
They weren't the best but they were certainly above average.
>the Scythians were red-haired
The Greek writers used "scythian" as a broad umbrella term that included western Slavs and Eastern Iranian tribes. The Majority of Scythians were Closer to Iranians and didn't have red hair.
The Slavs on the other hand could have.
>Vikings wore armor and swords
https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-mail-from-gjermundbu-norway/
Shall we refute the monkey?
. and matriarchal era of Neolithic Europe
TRUE
false, and show your evidence that this is real, but I will show some;
1/3
Ancestry and kinship identification in Neolithic Europe and Bronze Age (yes. It was continued! It was not the work of the Indo-Europeans).
Our ancestors (the chad EEF) were patrilineal people
One of earliest examples
Of the partrilineality comes from the Neolithic Europe in 4800 BC, where two families
Buried in necropolis in Gurpy, and are both connected via the male line as determined by structure of burial Y-DNA haplogroup analysis
2/3
Further evidence suggests that partrilineality was a kinship system used by the pretty chads EEF of indigenous European HG origin as well. (YES. THE CHADS WHG WERE PATRIARCHAL) The powerful elite buried within Neolithic passage tomb at newgrange belonged to Y-DNA I2a (WHG lineage)
3/3
the system was partrilineality for cultures primarily descended from European hunter gatherers on direct male line continued in bronze age (yes. Attributing patriarchalism to IE is false and gay)
And recent discoveries show that the use of patrilineality by agricultural Chads descendants WAS NOT AFFECTED By the Indo-Europeans into the gene pool.
A new paper by my friend allentoft et al (2024) provides an example of an individual labeled NEO729 whose overall ancresty was 85% descended from IE, but his y-dna was I2a-s2703.
A funnelbeaker chad EEF of WHG origin
You lost
>TRUE
No you fricking autist. They listed "matriarchal era" on their bullshit list.
I agree that it's bullshit...
I refuted you
and I can do it again with other sources if you want, just ask
You lost
"The Celts were mostly redheads"
I LITERALLY SAID THIS IS FALSE, you idiot
read what I said again.
and I didn't say that the Nao wore armor and swords in the broadest sense, I said something that might hurt someone completely outside the historical term like you, but armor was something rare and only among the warrior elite. Most Norsemen did not wear armor and their main weapon was still the axe
>I LITERALLY SAID THIS IS FALSE, you idiot
And that's wrong you idiot.
>and I didn't say that the Nao wore armor and swords in the broadest sense, I said something that might hurt someone completely outside the historical term like you, but armor was something rare and only among the warrior elite. Most Norsemen did not wear armor and their main weapon was still the axe
Or you could just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about...
Vikings wearing full armor was rare.
and expensive, difficult to get... it was something only for the elite
suck this photo;
most soldiers did not wear armor and long swords depended a lot on who they were fighting
>3. the Spartans were very skilled warriors
They weren't? Was all that rigour for show?
Supposedly while they worked out a lot they didn't actually train for battle itself.
I think it's more they were the only Greeks with a "standing" army till the sacred band. Most Greek soldiers were amateurs who couldn't soldier too long cause they had to harvest later, by comparison that made the Spartans better soldiers due to year round training but when they faced another well trained army they just became okay.
>sacred band
No such thing.
there are so many hahaha
but I'm going to /misc/ myths haha
. the Persians were Europeans
. the Scythians, Sakas, Tocharians were white, ignoring the fact that they were extremely hapas
. The tarim mummies somehow prove pure European migration into the region, which is false. since the mummies were simply ANE
. ancient pagans were concerned with preserving other people's culture
. the Hebrews were white
. the arabs changed the genetic polity of the middle east
. modern Indians are Dravians
. aristocracy comes from aristos = Aryan
Who are the white?
Scythians was a catch all term for people as diverse as those inhabiting the Danube to groups in mainland China. The common group usually referred to (The Sauromatae) were 100% European. They were from the area around the Sea of Azov.
If scythians was comprehensive, why did you use the term to refer to a specific tribe?
Or they weren't Scythians?
choose
Because the Greeks use it inconsistently. You can even look at New History by Zosimos, which was written in 6th century AD so at the period of turkification of the steppe and he will randomly use Scythian as an ethnic group as well as Scythian as an inhabitant of Scythia the geographical area. So for instance he will write that the goths did something, to only refer to them as scythians in the next sentence, probably a stylistic thing(it avoided repetition).
>So for instance he will write that the goths did something, to only refer to them as scythians in the next sentence, probably a stylistic thing(it avoided repetition).
goes back to Homer (or probably before him, but we don't have records) using Achaeans, Argives, and Danaans interchangeably.
>the Scythians, Sakas, Tocharians were white, ignoring the fact that they were extremely hapas
No they were fully west eurasian except for some
Its the turks that are hapas
Nop
Look zero % mongoloid
At the limit he look mixed with caucasians or west asians/iranians
Dude, they were happas.
The sakas were european Plus asian women (like me... i hate myself)
back to plebbit you go mongoloid
>. the Scythians, Sakas, Tocharians were white, ignoring the fact that they were extremely hapas
lolwut? How were they "extremely hapa"
Matrilineal tribes in mainland Europe is something the Greeks actually do attest to, albeit secondhand.
>Some tell a story how the Amazonian women dislocate the joints of their male children while mere infants, some at the knee, and others at the hip-joint, that they may be maimed, and that the male sex may not conspire against the female, and that they use them as artisans to perform any sedentary work, such as that of a shoemaker or brazier.
>Amazons
>not a myth
The myth had to arise from somewhere. I doubt they just started claiming these things about the inhabitants of the Maeotian swamp for no reason.
Yes, the greeks would not make up man-horse hybrids or being descended from Heracles or the existence of Atlantis
None of those things were as simple as they just woke up one day and made them up. Atlantis is actually a tricky one because it was written in a fictional dialogue and was described as real in story but never referred to as real in anything else.
pretty sure being descended from Heracles is just made up. Steppe-riders as core for centaurs, whatever. But what does that mean for Matrilinial tribes? That there were tribes where women fought alongside men out of which they made "Amazons enslaved their men like Spartans the Helots"?
Men were likely house husbands and the women were warriors. This is the natural way in some areas of Europe. That is what I consider to be the case. Enslavement and maiming male children might be tall tales but they almost certainly had real life origin.
The myth of the Amazons did not originate in Greece. (Search "F54" in https://www.mythologydatabase.com/bd/). In fact, the south-american rainforest Amazon was named that way because of a native myth of warrior women.
in truth no.
the word itself has Greek origins. It's Greek.
What happened was that when the Portuguese landed in these territories, they fought with many different tribes, and naturally fanciful and fearful myths were formed about these tribes.
Something similar to El Dorado, the myth was formed that there were female warriors in the Amazon jungles.
something similar to the Romans calling the Germanics "giants"
No, the Greek myth of the Amazons is obviously Greek, but the idea of a "nation of warrior women" is more ancient and likely paleolithic. Look at https://www.mythologydatabase.com/bd/, you cannot dismiss all those cases as foreign influence.
What does this mean naturally?
patriarchal governments have been around since the Paleolithic (see how the WHG were patrilineallity, patrifocal).
doesn't really say anything
Not saying the possibility of the myth being paleolithic attests Matriarchy, I am just a folkloregay messing around.
it's ok my brother
I love mythology too!
I wonder if some CHG or EHG shit affected the PIE deities.
Maybe the sky father thing comes from the fact that they look at the sky a lot, right? what I mean to say; nomadic shepherd = friend of heaven haha
>Maybe the sky father thing comes from the fact that they look at the sky a lot, right?
In relation to that... Look at K41 in https://www.mythologydatabase.com/bd/. The Thunder God versus Dragon is also paleolithic.
>"Some tell a story of how Amazonian women"
you lost. This is a myth and never existed
So then Herodotus’ less alarming account of the Scythians is also incorrect? He attests to female warriors and the like but not the maiming male kids part.
Why are you still talking?
will discuss mythology elsewhere.
you are based on mythology.
but you just need to explain;
because only the Scythians would have
women warriors?
Why has this never happened before?
Why did they leave and would women be warriors?
and the biological question? Women have smaller shoulders and this greatly influences the issue of using a bow (a well-known Scythian tactic) especially on horseback, and how would a group of women do this?
and how would this fit into the historical context? If nowadays with feminism women don't even make up 1%? (be honest with yourself, and don't present me with a set of hand-picked examples to form a quantitative metric)
the Scythians were patriarchal, and for what reason did they leave something like that? You realize that the Greeks mixed mythology into several things, don't you?
and why are reports of "Scythian warrior women" restricted to fanciful descriptions?
>and the biological question? Women have smaller shoulders and this greatly influences the issue of using a bow (a well-known Scythian tactic) especially on horseback, and how would a group of women do this?
This is answered if you actually read the texts. The women cut their right breast off in order to fire the bow.
>
In Europe there is a Scythian race, called Sauromatae, which inhabits the confines of the Palus Maeotis, and is different from all other races. Their women mount on horseback, use the bow, and throw the javelin from their horses, and fight with their enemies as long as they are virgins; and they do not lay aside their virginity until they kill three of their enemies, nor have any connection with men until they perform the sacrifices according to law. Whoever takes to herself a husband, gives up riding on horseback unless the necessity of a general expedition obliges her. They have no right breast; for while still of a tender age their mothers heat strongly a copper instrument constructed for this very purpose, and apply it to the right breast, which is burnt up, and its development being arrested, all the strength and fullness are determined to the right shoulder and arm.
Did you notice that you didn't respond to me at all?
and upon the same argument;
I will ask again;
and the biological question? the narrow feminine shoulders? the lack of female strength to pull the bow? and "cutting off the breasts" is as much fantasy as female warriors.
do you know why?
1. The Scythians didn't even have advanced medicine to do this, so it would be a crazy task to say the least
2. and the number of women who did this? How many would be willing? Why is the issue of cutting off breasts true and the issue of male genital multiplexing false? both are based on premises of bodily mutilation
3. What about the illnesses and future problems that this could cause? infections? death by bleeding? and cut somewhere wrong? Do you realize that even among midwives, it was common for women to die in childbirth, let alone practicing high mutilation?
4. and why would this be socially acceptable? Women have always been seen as reproducers, why would it be any different with the Scythians? Why should your women fight instead of being mothers?
It doesn't make sense my friend. I'm sorry, mythology is not history
and copying and pasting reports (if your source is true) does not give you reason
>1. The Scythians didn't even have advanced medicine to do this, so it would be a crazy task to say the least
They knew how to cauterize a wound. So that operation makes complete sense.
>What about the illnesses and future problems that this could cause? infections? death by bleeding? and
see above
>and why would this be socially acceptable? Women have always been seen as reproducers, why would it be any different with the Scythians?
Because too many men died in battle. They kept the left breast to suckle their young. This should all be obvious.
>mythology is not history
He's quoting a historian you nonce.
"They knew how to cauterize a wound. So this operation makes perfect sense."
no. Do not do;
Amputating a part of the body, such as the female breast, is so dangerous that it is necessary to use various types of natural remedies and other things to stop the blood and prevent wounds. If in Greece with civilized doctors, this was not easy, with the Scythians it was even worse. . and the troons? Even with modern technology, surgery problems are still common. and prove how they used it to heal wounds. the onus is yours.
lost again
"Because many men died in battle. They kept their left breast to suckle their young. This should all be obvious."
It's not a good justification.
The Romans in the Punic Wars lost almost a third of the male population of all ages, and the Roman women did not just become warriors. the same with the Celts being massacred by the Romans, or the two world wars.
It's not a good argument, you lost again.
and leaving the left or right breast does not refute what I said. what is more;
Your logic refutes you and you don't understand....
if men died in battle and the warrior branch was left unoccupied and Scythian women were supposed to supply this branch, what about Scythian women warriors who died? Who was the mother? A woman cannot be a mother and a worker at the same time and the result is what we see today, and how would women be mothers and warriors? and the cite population? as it happens? Or are women magically better fighters? and your worm;
breasts are just one of the things that prevents it. female shoulders are useless
mythology is not history
lost again
and even on the wounds;
How to prove that they cut the female breast with specific tools? If they knew these things, as we know today, the fact that the object is sharp does not mean that it is essential or recommended to use... using a sword is moronic.
and what is the archaeological piece of these objects? show me one
The female breast is not only incredible to kiss, it is extremely fragile and has
glandular epithelial tissue, connective tissue and adipose tissue, as well as veins, arteries and other fragile cavities, “cutting the breast” without taking into account these regions and where to cut correctly (you know the problems troons go through, don't you? and how problematic the postoperative period is)
and what did they use to prevent widespread infections? What did they use? And what did they do to stop the bleeding so that the woman wouldn't die?
You can argue that they were in children, but things don't mean much because;
Children cannot be warriors. The problems involving adults in mutilations are as serious as those involving children.
Or have you not realized how dangerous and harmful “sex change” surgeries are for children
Frick off!
We can indirectly attest to Scythians' matriarchal leanings by looking at their then-neighbouring Slavs who to this day are massive simps enslaved by their women
no
the Scythians were patriarchal, just like the Slavs and other ancient peoples
patriarchy is as old as the western hunter gatherers
>Celts Were Mostly Redheads
True. They were ALL blond-haird blue-eyed Nordics, they were nothing like Iberberians and Northern Italattoes.
Ammianus Marcellinus
>Almost all Gauls are tall and fair-skinned, with reddish hair. Their savage eyes make them fearful objects; they are eager to quarrel and excessively truculent. When, in the course of a dispute, any of them calls in his wife, a creature with gleaming blue eyes...
Diodorus Siculus
>The Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so, but they make it their practice to increase the distinguishing color by which nature has given it.
In Satyricon, Encolpius suggests using white face paint to disguise himself as a Gaul. They were on the ship of their enemy, a man whose wife he had bedded and they needed a ruse to escape.
No
OP is right
the Celts were not mainly redheads.
this is a myth... and its sources contradict;
Were they redheads or blondes?
and she herself confirms that they dyed their hair
and about the Scythians, how these two imbeciles are arguing about whether they were matriarchal or not, EVERYTHING about the Scythians is extremely variable and unreliable.
the Scythians were mostly dark-haired and dark-eyed.
look;
>EVERYTHING about the Scythians is extremely variable and unreliable.
That is because the term is used to mean many different things. The Scythian tribe which lived around the Azov sea is described as matriarchal in surviving Greek accounts. This is a factual statement even. Whether you disbelieve or not is irrelevant.
the guys above refuted, there is no need for me to give you a lesson on why no type of matriarchal government has survived.
and regarding your first argument, the same goes for the Germanics, Celts...
in fact, anyone at the academy already knows this, captain obvious.
Just like the Scythians, Celts or Germanics were not an ethno-linguistic group. the same with bell beakers
wrong.
The Celts were mostly light-haired, perhaps not red, but blond.
they had high amounts of steppe ancestry.
and we have a stalemate here;
Who will be right? several historical sources without mythological content (like the shit about the Amazons that the feminist is crying here) and the results of SNP and other shit...
Several sources treat the Scythians as red-haired and light-eyed, but samples say otherwise. I stick with the historical accounts.
Even taking into account the exaggeration argument, reports still say that they had high concentrations of hair and light features.
I don't care who you choose
Historical accounts are basically useless today and most are refuted by genetics.
If you want to base yourself on old sources made by people who are not impartial, who exaggerated things at all costs, that's your problem.
Ancient sources:
"The Etruscans came from anatolia dudee" hahaha
Why this arrogance?
Do you realize that historical accounts often align with genetics and archaeology?
I don't think the Scythians were mainly dark haired
It's not arrogance...
you show meaningless historical accounts and say that I am arrogant?
prove to me with genetics that the Gauls were mostly red or blond and that the Scythians (doesn't exist)
They were predominantly redheads
their most related populations are souther french medgritos kek
[Their wild eyes make them fearful objects]
[When, in the course of a dispute, one of them calls his wife, a creature with bright blue eyes...)
In addition to losing practically all of our battles, your cukGeuls called his wife when they were lost HAHAHAHAHHAHA
what cucks
Horse archers were invicible and that they are the reason to mongol success
>There exists "Central Europe"
No, it's the west and the east and also north and south, center? Way to avoid being lumped together with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia.
Hating Sparta has become a huge signifier of left-wing historian circles, I'm not sure why people started laser focusing on Sparta of all things.
Mostly a backlash to 300. Outside of that, the Spartans don't actually have much modern presence. The Romans were actually what the Spartans were claimed to be and they generally get much more attention.