Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Pakistan and ancient Persian empires

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pakistan and ancient Persian empires
    Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 16:39
it is amazing that we never here about this, During the the height of the persian empires such as the great achaemenid empire, Median Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthia, the area known as Pakistan today was always under them, infact much of the land west of river indus was part of ancient persia, yet people dont even know about it.
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 19:02
Read this carefully, maybe you should read it a few times so you can understand it. I will try to make it as simple as possible.
In all your post you insult Indians, saying how they were to smelly for Alexander the great to invade, and  Hindus worship cow Gods and Idols which is the reason people laugh at them.
Now you also boast about  the area known as Pakistan being part of the Persian empre at certain times, and this is a little known fact.
Well,  cough, "genius" Pakistan was only created 60 years ago,  before then it was part of India, and that is what Alexander the great refers to it as, while the Persians call it the land of the Hindus.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Dont try to bate me because i will not bother replying to you again. Better things to do
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 19:08
it was part india only because of british, other wise the cultures of two countries are very different, and this is a proof that pakistan and india were meant to be seperate from the begining.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 20:50
Vedam if you have an issue with a particular post please point it out to me by PM.

If this thread continues to go the way it has started it will be locked
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 01:21
Who cares if we were part of those old empires. Just as pakis were meant to be independant of greater Bharat so are we meant to be independant of Iranis and Afghans. 
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 02:31

Originally posted by Vedam

Well, cough, "genius" Pakistan was only created 60 years ago, before then it was part of India, and that is what Alexander the great refers to it as, while the Persians call it the land of the Hindus.

Which of course isnt correct. The word India comes from the Vedic reference to the "Seven Rivers"/Saptha Sindhu (River Indus). Sindhu became renamed as Hindhu in Persian.  This was the name given to their Eastern border aka. Pakistan. From here it past to the Greeks and became known as Ind and then India..Alexander referred to modern day Pakistan as India but nothing beyond that.

In 1947, Pakistan discarded the name, India took it. But to then claim that Pakistan is a part of modern day India based on history as you're doing is just plainly dishonest. Pakistan was the origin of the word India which is named after the Indus, but the name originally was for the Indus Valley and no more.

Originally posted by lara

it was part india only because of british, other wise the cultures of two countries are very different, and this is a proof that pakistan and india were meant to be seperate from the begining.

Yes, time and time again the Mahabharata mentions of the differences in culture and religion between the two countries. These differences were not only in the last 50 years, they've existed for millenia.

Originally posted by maqsad

Who cares if we were part of those old empires. Just as pakis were meant to be independant of greater Bharat so are we meant to be independant of Iranis and Afghans. 
 
Yes, that's true, though Pakistan does contain the greatest number of Afghans in the world.
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
  Quote ashokharsana Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 02:54
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

In 1947, Pakistan discarded the name

 
The name Pakistan was coined by Chaudhary rehmat ali khan A gujjar from Punjab in 1930......
 
Rest of your post is almost true....India and pakistan though look similar they have a lot of cultural difference...........
 
Its also true that It was actually the area near Modern Pakistan which passed the name India or hidustan. But Pakistan had always been a part of India till 1947 , These two countries have given many world known rulers and freedomfighters and you cant deny it on "Just today's Views".
 
 
Happy Diwali to all of you
 
Regards
 
Ashok Harsana
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 03:29
Originally posted by ashokharsana

[Pakistan had always been a part of India till 1947 , These two countries have given many world known rulers and freedomfighters and you cant deny it on "Just today's Views".
 
The freedom fighters I agree on. In fact, I do admire them irrespective of nationality. But Pakistan was not a part of India before the 18th century. India(modern sense)  is not just Harayana or Gujerat. To say anything is a part of India it needs to be part of an entity spanning from Punjab in the West to Bengal/Orissa in the East and as far South as Bangalore. Else it has not been a part of India in history.
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 10:34
I see a warning has been issued to "lara"Clap.  After reading "Lara's" informative and unbiased posts, i can't possibly think why.
 


Edited by Vedam - 21-Oct-2006 at 10:38
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 19:08

 Shockedfor your information Median,  Seleucid, and Parthia WERE NOT PERSIANS! NOR THEIR EMPIRE A PERSIAN EMPIRE! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 20:58
Exactly how were Media and Parthia not persian empires? The Seleucid empire although ruled by greeks should be considered a persian empire because it occupied all of persia, and used persian troops in its armies.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 11:47
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Exactly how were Media and Parthia not persian empires? The Seleucid empire although ruled by greeks should be considered a persian empire because it occupied all of persia, and used persian troops in its armies.
 

I suggest you do a search on Parthian and Medis.... just because they rule Persians does not mean they were Persian. Parthians originally were nomads from Bactria (Balkh Afghanistan). They were Scythian-Parni nomads (Assyrians called them Ashkuz) and had settled in Parthia and had built a small independent kingdom there! Cyrus Persian king conquer Parthia and for the next two centuries, Parthia was part of the Achaemenid empire.

 

In 522/521 BCE, Parthia revolted against the Persians, joining the Median rebel king Phraortes. But after the defeat of Medians by Persian---- Parthians were pacified again. Later on, Partia were part of Seleucid empire founded by Alexander the great.

In 245 , a Parthian satrap named Andragoras, revolted from the young Seleucid king Seleucus II Callinicus, who had just succeeded to the throne. In the confusion, Parthia was attacked by the Parni, a nomad tribe from the Central-Asian steppe. In 238, Parni occupied the district known as Astavene. Three years later, a Parnian leader named Tiridates ventured further south and seized the rest of Parthia. A counter-offensive by king Seleucus in 230-227 ended in disaster, and Hyrcania was also subdued by the Parni. Their capital was Hecatompylos.

 From now on, the Parni were known as Parthians. In the years that followed, their kings -Arsaces I, Arsaces II, Phriapathus, Phraates I- recognized the Seleucid king as their superiors, but under Mithradates I the Great (171-138 BCE) they conquered Media, Babylonia, and Elam, Persia and.. The end of Parthian long lasted empire came in 224 CE, when the empire was loosely organized and the last king was defeated by one of the empire's vassals, the Persians of the Sassanid dynasty.

Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 03:35
Azmal the Parthians may not have bin Persian from southern Pars provence but they were surely a iranic people there for they are considered a iranian empire.  I know alot about the Scythians they wern't turkic nor northic they were a iranic (indo european people).
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:26
Originally posted by lara

it is amazing that we never here about this, During the the height of the persian empires such as the great achaemenid empire, Median Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthia, the area known as Pakistan today was always under them, infact much of the land west of river indus was part of ancient persia, yet people dont even know about it.
 
You are right Lara, Pakistan should be a part of the Shia Iran no also. It is better that way, Now please take the initiative & start the movement to regularize your belief. Addition of the pakistani territory to Iran would also help the Shias in strengthening their leadership position as the future champions of the muslim world. 
 
IT will also help Afghanistan for both the parts of Afghanistan could unite & the Afghans could be officilly united, instead of playing poor cousins to the Punjabis, despite doing more fruitfull work than them.
 
It will also help the vanquished people of baloochistan who could also unite with their brethern in Iran.
 
It will also help the Indians in another way, the Shia population in India would be very happy with this move, & we could get theri votes by supporting Iran.
 


Edited by Vivek Sharma - 01-Nov-2006 at 04:47
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:28
And off course the biggest beneficiary would be India, for Iran is a friend & we would be able to get the cheap iranian gas without any hiccups.
 
 
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:37
Three cheers for you Lara & more for the resurgent Shia Iran.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Batoor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

aka azmal.

Joined: 25-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Batoor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 16:54
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan

Azmal the Parthians may not have bin Persian from southern Pars provence but they were surely a iranic people there for they are considered a iranian empire.  I know alot about the Scythians they wern't turkic nor northic they were a iranic (indo european people).
 
 

The word Iranian and iranic has lost the original connotation today all citizen of country iran formerly known as Persia are called Iranian that include Azari Turk, Armani, Assyrians, Arabs, Turkmen and. More then 55% of Irans population.

The original Aryan(Iranian) people were/are Persians, Tajiks, Pashtons, Baloch. Indeed Parthian were eastern Iranian they were more related to todays tajiks and Pashtons then western Iranians like Bloch and Persians.

Back to Top
mard View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote mard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 21:58

yup baloch and pashtuns are indeed not indian at all, however punjabis and sindhis are mixed with indian blood, so there half half.

Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 01:34
Originally posted by Batoor

Originally posted by kingofmazanderan

Azmal the Parthians may not have bin Persian from southern Pars provence but they were surely a iranic people there for they are considered a iranian empire.  I know alot about the Scythians they wern't turkic nor northic they were a iranic (indo european people).
 
 

The word Iranian and iranic has lost the original connotation today all citizen of country iran formerly known as Persia are called Iranian that include Azari Turk, Armani, Assyrians, Arabs, Turkmen and. More then 55% of Irans population.

The original Aryan(Iranian) people were/are Persians, Tajiks, Pashtons, Baloch. Indeed Parthian were eastern Iranian they were more related to todays tajiks and Pashtons then western Iranians like Bloch and Persians.

 
Pure genius..all based on a figment of his imagination.
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 01:39
Originally posted by mard

yup baloch and pashtuns are indeed not indian at all, however punjabis and sindhis are mixed with indian blood, so there half half.

 
Punjabis and Sindhis arent really mixed with Indian at all. At least not central and southern generally. The cities do have a lot of Indians though in Punjab and Sindh. Some mixing of course occurs as everywhere. Punjabis generally are Punjabi and Sindhis generally are Sindhi.
 
As for Eastern Baloch and Eastern Pashtuns, you're right, they're not Indians, they're Pakistani.
 
 
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.