Pakistan and ancient Persian empires
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15662
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 21:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pakistan and ancient Persian empires
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Pakistan and ancient Persian empires
Date 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.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Vedam
Date 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
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date 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. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 02:31
|
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.
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.
Yes, that's true, though Pakistan does contain the greatest number of Afghans in the world. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: ashokharsana
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 02:54
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 |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 03:29
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................. |
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 10:34
I see a warning has been issued to "lara" . After reading "Lara's" informative and unbiased posts, i can't possibly think why.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2006 at 19:08
|
|
for your information Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 11:47
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 In 522/521 BCE, 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, 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid - |
Posted By: kingofmazanderan
Date 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). |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:26
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.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date 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 |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:37
|
Three cheers for you Lara & more for the resurgent Shia Iran. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Batoor
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 16:54
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 The original Aryan(Iranian) people were/are Persians, Tajiks, Pashtons, Baloch. Indeed Parthian were eastern “Iranian” they were more related to today’s tajiks and Pashtons then western Iranians like Bloch and Persians. |
Posted By: mard
Date 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. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 01:34
Pure genius..all based on a figment of his imagination. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 01:39
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................. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 00:21
Wrong, they are afghans-iranians ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 02:28
It must be great to post without having the slightest knowledge of linguistical or ethnic groups. Pashtuns/Afghans are an ethnic group and Eastern Pashtuns are Pakistani. Eastern Balochis are an ethnic group that are Pakistani. Iranian is a citizen of Iran, Iranic is a linguistical group of people that speak Iranic languages. This makes Pashtuns in the East Pakistani people with an Iranic language, and Balochi people also Pakistani people with an Iranic language. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 03:03
|
Trying to hide the truth behind illogical large worded vocalbulary does not make things different. The Afghans & The Balooch are different from the Indian Sindh & Punjab which is Pakistan ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 03:08
 Sindhis are also different to Punjabis, who are also different to the majority of Indians. Baloch are different to Sindhis and are different to Persians, Afghans likewise. But parts of all these groups are Pakistani, which is a multi ethnic country. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:15
|
Multi ethnic off course, that is one quality of its parent which it cannot shave off, illogical theorization of yours truly notwithstanding. But the rest is rest off course. Pak is a small breakaway part of India which was again broken up to be tamed (learnt to live with it) & still cribbing about some break ups, time will be the biggest healing factor untill East germany or Vietnam happens. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 14:59
|
Yes pakistan is a breakaway part of the hermetically sealed ethnically homogenous country called India where everyone looks exactly the same, speaks the same language, eats the same food and follows the same religion. And people like Vivek love pakistan so much that they want to remind us of this little fact every opportunity they get. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 23:20
|
No people ike Vivek are the ones who adhere the the Akhud BharRAT theory. Which is only slightly less plausible than the theroies that Aliens made the pyramids and the George Bush had a brain.
------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 23:50
|
No Sparten, some steps have already been taken in that regard, successfully. Try to guess !!!! ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Rasoolpuri
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 12:19
Indeed once Pakistan area from left of sindh river was part of some old Irainian empires but this area is originally and indpendent area from the civilization of Harappa.In its nature it is not part of India .In the period of Kanshka this area was part of non-indian kushans. 
|
Posted By: Rasoolpuri
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 12:32
|
There was no victory of Alexander (the great ?)in north-west area of south asia (now in Pakistan) on porus .It was compromise between two great kings .Alexander restored his state and Porus supported in other batteles .
Alexander was beatten badly in the of Multan.He was injured seriously .He returned after this battle and deid in Iraq due to his poisoned injuries. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 15:34
| No it was not the poisoned arrow that killed him. He recovered from the poisoned arrow that some kid shot him with in Multan but after recovering he told half his army to sail around Iran and took the other half and walked across Iran. It was during this walk that almost half his army died in the desert. He could not have been that weak from the arrow if he survived that. But yes its true, a paki came the closest to killing Alexander than anyone else in the world did. |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 23:48
|
Yes, punjabis are punjabis and Sindhis are Sindhis. One cannot necessarily assume their mixed "half half" with Indian blood! Please, Punjabi's have a different look than typical Indian's, big time! ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 23:56
|
Vivek, it would be a good idea if you pay a visit to Pakistan, please visit Punjab, and Sindh, so you can see the difference. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 16:30
| i disagree with you some people here, punjabis and sindhis have very much commen with indians and also true is they have mixed with persians and afghans over many years. I guess punjab is a region where cultures of hindu india and cultures of persians mixed. i have seen a lot of punjabis that look very dark, i would say half of punjabis actually have darker skin and yes the other half have lighter skin like persians and afghans. The truest answer is they are a mixed race. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 17:10
Punjabis and Sindhis are linguistically and even racially (or ethnically) different.. Punjabis are not essentially Persian or Indian, though there is mixing as within any ethnic group within the region. The Punjabi is not some mongrel breed as your suggesting..Punjabis have their own ethnical foundation that has mixing from the surrounding ethnicities. Punjabis are different to Sindhis in the way they speak, their traditions, their looks arent easy to tell apart in all cases, but they do have a set look, just as the Indian Tamil has a set look, or the East Indian Bengali has a set look. That look is in no way "Indian" in the slightest. Perhaps the difference between a Punjabi and a Sindhi isnt as great as a South Indian Tamil and a Northwest Indian Punjabi, but there is still a difference between the two areas. The difference is roughly the same as that of a Kashmiri and a Punjabi in appearance, and of course Northern Punjabis are pretty much indistinguishable from Kashmiris as you'd expect. Your view is limited to colour, with the belief that any colour in between the two shades either side must be mixed, and that those shades themselves are not mixed, which is just a load of baloney.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 17:17
| ofcourse yes there is different between punjabis and sindhis i am not denying that, but i am talking about what northpakistani and some other people said that punjabis and sindhis have nothing to do with indians that is not true. they have a lot to do with indian and indian culture. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 17:35
No they dont. Culturally India is predominantly Hindu, Sindhis are Muslim, Punjabis in Pakistan are Muslim. That's a completely different culture. Punjabi versus Sindhi is also a different culture.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 18:22
| dude i am talking about race wise not cultural or religious wise, punjabis are more indian then they are persian. i am from kashmir and i even dont deny that atleast half of my genes are indians, rest could a mixed bag from persia or central asia same could go for punjabis. The punjab region has been part of india through out the ages rather then persia, only western half of pakistan could be considered more persian then indian. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 18:33
where do you get the figure half your genes are Indian from? Punjab region has not been part of Northeast, Central or South India throughout the ages (a bit central India, but because Punjab was under the same ruler as Uttar Pradesh, this didn't suddenly change their genes so that someone from Uttar Pradesh is genetically similar to someone from Punjab). what Persian influence is there in the Western half of Pakistan?
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 20:18
|
I feel most of the points appearing here have already been dicussed say in "Pakistan stolen history".
As for as the study of genetic studies are concerned, it is pointed out that they are not final and therefore from which we cannot make anything final. To say that my genes contain so and so% of X and rest Y etc., again fall under the category of psuedo-science, just like racial myths and hypotheses.
Coming to Alexander, there is no historical evidence that he came to India. The "Porus medal" as pointed out by Vincent Arthur Smith clearly proves that he was critically hurt by the Indian King who depicted as sitting on the elephant and he was reportedly dead due to many reasons, which are even discussed by doctors today:
-excessive bleeding,
- fever
- mysterious disese
and so on. I do not want to go into other controversies. ------------- History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past. |
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 20:21
|
Even the "Alexander" film depict such scene vividly and it has been based on such "Porus medal".
You can easily match the two portrayal.s ------------- History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 21:01
people of punjab are not racially very different of people of north india, thats all i am saying. by your logic even north indians shouldn't be indians. because they are also a mixed with other races to some degree.
|
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 21:42
alright..so a Punjabi (presumably in Pakistan) is not racially/ethnically different to a Bengali in Calcultta (which is in North India)? I would say you could take an Indian from Uttar Pradesh (Northwest/central India) even and have a good chance to guess who was the Punjabi and who was the UPite
I dont understand the second part. But India, even/especially North India is not racially/culturally the same..there's plenty of different ethnic groups, all Indian though.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 23:16
| i know every race is in the indian subcontinent is somewhat different that is what i am not arguing about, but i am arguing about is that a punjab is more indian then persian, and i am not saying indian in the sense of todays india, i am saying as an indiansubcontenent. I simply dont understand how some of you guys can say punjab is more persian then india and hindus had nothing to do with it. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 05:41
alrightie, that's cleared that up then.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 08:06
|
Well with the Punjab, I think the Potohar and West Punkab are more inclined to the Western neighbours then India.
------------- |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 20:06
| the pathans in pakistan are closer to persians |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 21:35
the evidence for this new revelation is? your obsessed with persians..look, pathans are just pathans..unique culture, ethnic group etc. pathans you could say are are mixed in with a bit of Punjabi, a bit of Persian, a bit of wherever, Sindhi, Balochi, but Pathans have their own culture and identity, and even genetics (with a bit of influence from the surrounding regions - but generally its own).
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 01:59
|
i am basing every thing on culture and language wise, punjabi culture and language is more indianized and pathan culture and language is more centeral asian and persian then indian. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 07:40
How is Pathan culture more Persian than Punjabi culture? List about 5-10 ways.
How is Punjabi culture more "Indianized" than Pathan culture? You do known that India is bigger than Delhi and East Punjabi past Hayana, don't you?
How is the Pashto language more Persian than the Punjabi language (which is similar to Urdu believed to be derived from Persian Armies)?
"If more than 60% of the words are common in Punjabi and Urdu (Shriram 1928:67) it is due to the influence of Persian."
http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/articles/language_of_armies.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/articles/language_of_armies.php
If anything Pashto is a very distinct language to any other language in the world, the only similar ones being the Pamir group. It's thought the Eastern Iranic languages (Pashto, Ossetian etc) split from the others in the group about 4 or 5,000 years ago, yet, as the above article believes, Urdu was created around 1,000 years ago in fact from the Persian camps of Mahmud of Ghaznavi. If you're looking for closely related languages, it wouldnt be Pashto with a 4,000 year distinct evolution of its own.
Here's a couple of language similarities between Punjabi and Persian though..
If anything Pashto is more influenced by Sanskrit than Persian, though some loanwords do come from there (but not as many as Urdu for example).
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 10:43
|
i dont think you have the slighest idea what ur talking about. Pashto is a eastern iranian language and is clearly related to persian.
see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_language - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_language
while punjabi is from the indo indic branch which includes most of the languages spoken in north india see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indic_languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indic_languages
Both punjabi and urdu are languages from the indian subcontinent just because we some words from persian and arabic doesn't change the fact that our grammer is indic and pushto belongs to the languages spoken in central asia and iran.
as for the culture yes i know there is a huge difference between south and north india and yes punjab is related to north india but it is still india i dont see your point about that. Pathans have their cultural realations to central asian countries including afghanistan,uzbekistan, tajiks and clearly they little todo with the indian subcontinent.
|
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 11:15
How is Pashto language closely related to the Persian language, when Pashto forms one of the Eastern Iranic languages, and Persian one of the Western Iranic languages? You do realized that these time splits between these two groups is thousands of years, do you not?
Punjabi is from the Indic branch of languages but it has a significant number of loan words from Persian, more so than Pashto. Incidentally, wikipedia is a very poor source to be quoting, but even this website (which is more biased towards the Afghani viewpoint) suggests strong Sanskrit influence on the Pashto language.
"Written in a modified Perso-Arabic alphabet, Pashto shows strong Sanskrit influence, some Arabic and Persian loanwords, and numerous archaic Sanskrit features."
http://www.pashto.org/content/view/14/62/ - http://www.pashto.org/content/view/14/62/
You tell me how Pashto is more closely related to Persian than Punjabi/Urdu, when it was Persians that created the Punjabi/Urdu language (not Indians). Punjabi language is a fusion of Indian and Persian languages afaik, Pashto is not - it is an archaic language derived heavily from Sanskrit, but classified as an Iranic language.
It's not just some loanwords "you" use, it's nearly half the vocabulary! Pashto shares more similarity with Pamir/Ossetian than it does Persian, so what does that prove? Not a lot..
1) Where does North and South India come into this?
2) How is a Punjabi in Pakistan related to a Bengali in North India?
3) How are Pathans culturally related to Uzbeks? Pathans have their own culture, it's not Punjabi, it's not Uzbek, It's not Tajik, and it's not Persian. I've already asked you to name some ways in which Pathan culture is more similar to Persian culture, and you haven't named me one way! Give me some answers, and you might convince people your point of view is perhaps right. Here are my questions for you again, in case you missed them..
4) How is Pathan culture more Persian than Punjabi culture? List about 5-10 ways.
5) How is Punjabi culture more "Indianized" than Pathan culture? You do known that India is bigger than Delhi and East Punjab past Haryana, don't you?
6) How is the Pashto language more Persian than the Punjabi language (which is similar to Urdu believed to be derived from Persian Armies)?
Let's stick to answering these questions before moving on, shall we? http://www.pashto.org/content/view/14/62/ - ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 12:36
|
by persian i acutally meant iranic languages, not persian in a sense of persian today.
U simply dont understand what i am talking about, i am not saying pathans are exactly the same as central asian, but thier language and culture is very similar to them, same way punjabis are very similar to north indians, i know its not the same but similar. there is a difference between the word same and similar.
|
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 12:41
|
Pathans I think are of central asian origin, but many of the modern groups (for example Uzbeks) hardly are central asian in the same sense.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 14:41
|
HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIANS AND PAKISTANIS.
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html - http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html
Indian's are genetically different then us, check it out.
However due to the major herds of muhajirs (Indian migrants) in our country alot of interbreeding makes pakistani's to look quite similar to Indians...they are not pure paki, but paki-indians, you can see them alot in Karachi. Goto Islamabad (in Punjab) and you will see a major difference in culture, food and faces. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 14:46
|
QUOTE: Language/linguistics: ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 14:54
|
Some pathan groups have also been identified as ancient Jews. Certain words in pashtun are also found in Hebrew. But of course, there are so many other factors to consider, because the Pashtuns are quite mixed and complex to define. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 15:58
|
The Jewish thing is also a red herring, at least that's what the genetics suggest. You can find lots of loan words, even English gets its own words in many places.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 16:54
|
Well words spoken in some areas of Africa, match the dravidians, and not only that, but the Indian dravidians have a striking resemblance to the australoids too. This shows that language does stem from other ancient cultures. I wonder if Aramaic is a branch of Arabic or if Arabic was derived from that? Pashto may also have picked up a few words from languages that are now extinct. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 16:56
|
Teldeinduz- are you pashtun? ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 16:58
everything you have posted is bull crap as it is posted by some pakistani who obviously hates indians. seriously guys like you shouldn't even allowed on this forum who are so biased. i am not saying punjabis have exactly the same genitics as todays north indians but, punjabis and north indians are closer to each other genetically then lets say punjabis and pathans. and punjabis represent about 60% of pakistan.
|
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 17:18
|
i also degree with the statments that you claim that majority of pakistanis are fair skinned similar to middle eastern and mediterranean. This is false, i have seen a lot and i mean alot of punjabis that are darkskinned as indians, also majority of sindhis are also dark skinned, also many many balochis are darkskinned. The only majority fair skinned people in pakistan are pathans and they only represent 10% of the total pakistan population. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 17:55
What you're saying is not correct. It's not even similar to North India. Punjabis have similar Y-genetics to some Northwestern Indian groups like Punjabis, perhaps a bit with Rajasthanis, but that is as far as it goes.
If you're looking at it genetically, Pashtun Y-genetics is more similar to Punjabi Y-genetics than Punjabi Y is to North Indian. You can check any genetic review on the large amounts of Hg3 in Pashtun and Punjabi populations, and the lesser amounts in places like Orissa which are dominated by Haplogroup K*.
Punjabi population is officially 44% of Pakistan according to the national language authority (government figures), looks like you've included Siraiki and other languages spoken in Punjab.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:16
Pathans represent 15% of the population according to the Pakistani government, and there are other groups, namely those from the Northern Areas and even North Punjab who don't look too far off the Pathans. I havent read everything he's written, but he's not wrong to say that Punjabis do look more like Middle Easterners than Indians in skin colour (you'll have to remember this is a pointless comparison anyway, since this is all based on the amount of UV a person sees rather than any sort of ethnic basis). In cities like Karachi, there are large numbers of Indian immigrants as well as some other cities, but generally if you look outside of the Punjabi and Sindhi cities, these are what the ancestral Pakistanis look like. You can see the skin colour of Punjab circled in the following map (it's not accurate but on a broad scale it would be I assume), which is roughly equal to quite a few Middle Eastern countries, more so than India, so what he's saying does have some truth.
 ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 22:20
|
The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis---this mixture is what produces the dark skinned pakistanis, mainly in heavily populated southern cities like Karachi. The alleles of punjabi's and tribes in the north, tend to breed within their own population, causing them to maintain their own physical attributes which is quite distinguishable from those who have been infused. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 22:33
where did that come from? Mongoloids arent dark, and Mongoloids generally only exist in the West of Pakistan, not Karachi, how are any of the groups in Pakistan Australoid except the Makranis? The dark colour of Pakistanis comes from the climate in the South, not from any ethnic basis. Whilst it's true the majority of people in Sindh, Punjab, the North etc are their own ethnic group, they all have mixing, there's nothing special about Punjabi or Northern groups breeding habits that differ markedly from everyone elses. dont know about alleles breeding with each other either ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 22:55
|
The Punjabis of India certainly did have a genetic drift in Pakistan, the Pashtuns also have a large gene pool in this area since Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Peshawar are neighbours. Many Afghans have settled in Bolochistan and Punjab for decades and integrated within the society.
------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 23:03
|
That is a quote from the article. Mongoloids themselves aren't dark but their mixed with dravidians and some parts of our populations. ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 01:31
|
i disagree with the thought climate effecting the skin colour. if this was true how come it doesn't effect all people, why are some people so fairskinned living in the same area while others are so dark?
if this was true, surely the white people who have lived in south africa or austaralia for the last 400-500 years would have been dark, but their not.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 05:07
|
Makranis are African IIRC that would make them Negroid.
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 05:36
White Australians aren't necessarily whiter than Pakistanis. Its very difficult to generalise of course, but white Australians are alot darker than their European ancestors. ------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 06:43
lol, no, it's not what genetic drift is. Peshawar I think isnt really a good example, it's fairly mixed with all the immigrants that have gone there over the the course of centuries.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 06:47
Ermm, immigration into the region? People move around you know.
To spread colouration into the population on a permanent basis is going to take a lot longer than 500 years, or 20-25 generations about
 ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 08:51
| There are no dark skinned people in Pakistan? |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 09:00
where did this come from?
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 09:18
|
If "indegenous people" / "sons of soil" etc., are to be believed, thety must have been some people.
Moreover, if AIT is believed, they must have been "Dravidians" in Pakistan also!
Then, the "Pakistani Dravidians" are black or white / dolicocephalic or brachy or meso / colour would be black or blue, height tall or short etc.
|
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 09:22
|
lol this has to be the best subsection of the forum
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 09:28
|
Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, the "Dravidian" protagonists would continue to ask such questions.
Perpaps, no such ideologist has become a member of AE!
Then, you would have chance to deal with him!!
|
Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 18:18
|
?  ------------- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -- Albert Einstein |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 20:16
|
Despite being one of the richest satraps of the Persian empire, much of Pakistan's history with Ancient Persia has largely been ignored or brushed aside despite the fact that Persia & Persian culture probably excerted the greatest and longest lasting influence on Pakistan as a whole versus any other culture. (eg. British, Central Asian, Mogul, afghan, indian/south asian). If taken as a whole, this influence and interaction with Persia has allowed Pakistan to become what it is today. Even to this day, one can find Persian wheels, irrigation devices, tablets/edicts all throughout the country, conversely, many artifacts from the trans indus region and even statues depicting persian subjects of Pakistani origin(Balochi, Pashtun, Panjabi) are visible in Iran today. Many scientists and Mystics that settled Pakistan where Persian in origin. Considerable Persian migration also took place with many shopkeepers and tradesmen families claiming Persian decent/lineages. Much of Pakistan's nobility and leading families are Persian in origin. Conversely, many people from the region of Pakistan migrated to Persia proper near the region of Fars and even as far north as the Caspian during the times of the Persian empire. Pakistani fought alongside Persians in Persia's numerous expeditions in the west particularly against Greece. The two countries shared direct land to land contact and much communication occured via their proximity to one another. Rather than being at odds with one another, the two joined together in a synergistic approach, a process which helped enrich them to their mutual benefit.
It was due to the inclusion of Pakistan's province in Persian maps, that Alexander came this far and conquered the region being that Pakistan(more specifically, Sagala in North eastern Pakistani Panjab) was the eastern most outpost of the Greek Empire stretching down to Bhambore near modern day Karachi. Trade between East and west mushroomed.
I think much more appreciation and discussion of Pakistan's Persian legacy needs to be undertaken in order to have a better understanding of the regions history and Pakistan's uniqueness in the region. Infact, I think failure to appreciate Pakistan's Persian past will prevent many from understanding the country and its history in a correct manner as the Persian period was one of the most stable, peaceful and dynamic periods the region had ever seen. To not factor this important period will result in a distorted view of the country. Also, Persian historians are at a considerable loss without factoring in the history and legacy of these important, vital and strategic Eastern Persian lands (i.e. Pakistan) and as such, no complete understanding and clear picture of the once mighty and still very much influential Persian empire will be made possible until Pakistani's, Persians (and Iranians) and Historians alike allocate funds and undertake greater research into Pakistan's Persian past.
Thorough research into this important aspect of Pakistan's past will surely reveal many good finds from an archealogical as well as historical point of view and allow Pakistani's and Persian's alike to learn more about their common past.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 20:58
  
|
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2007 at 23:05
Thats not actually true. The Median and Seleucid empires were not Persian. The Medes were a different Iranian tribe from the Persians and the Seleucids were not even Iranian at all. They were Greco-Macedonian invaders. The extent of the Median empire is not entirely known but it is certain that it did not reach the size of the Achaemenid empire, not by a long shot. At its easternmost point the Median empire probably extended into what is now southern Afghanistan.
On what are you basing this on? There are three good books available in English language which deal exclusively with the pre-Islamic empires of Iran (Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid) and in none of them is there any mention about Pakistan. Infact in Dr Kaveh Farrokh's book on ancient Persia there are only 3 paragraphs dedicated to the discussion on Persian rule in India (what is now Pakistan) and this comes under the chapter on Darius the Great. Why theres so little content on Pakistan/India is because there is no real evidence that Persian rule extended into the Indian subcontinent. From what Dr Kaveh says in his book (and he's done decades of research on ancient Persia) is that under Darius it is likely that the Achaemenids invaded India and defeated the people they encountered there and probably extracted tribute from them. But the Achaemenids only nominally ruled parts of India (now Pakistan).
I think you're mistaking Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of Afghanistan can be said to have been apart of ancient Persia as opposed to being an area occupied by Persia, but not Pakistan. The territories in Pakistan/India that Darius the Great invaded can not be considered as Persia. They were foreign lands that were invaded by us.
The Parthians never ruled beyond what is now Afghanistan and there is little evidence to suggest that the Sassanids did either. Altho it is possible that the Sassanids invaded western India but it is unlikely that they ruled it. I havent read any books to suggest there was ever much of a Persian presence in India. You dont even find any real mention about India in Iranian history books or books on ancient Persia.
Anyway if you're interested in a book on just ancient Persia then see Dr Kaveh Farrokh's book 'Shadows in the Desert' or Josef Wiesehofer's "Ancient Persia". There's also another book on the subject by Maria Brosius. |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2007 at 07:12
 I think I might have responded in the wrong forum to this Thread.. my apologies to the moderators! :(
anyhow, I will repost here (hopefully AE forum moderators will forgive my mistake)
Pakistan, as proven by the wealth of archeological and physical evidence, had strong links to the Persian Empire. In fact the Persian Maps that the Greeks/Macedonians used in their quests showed the region making up the modern day republic of Pakistan as being part of the Persian Empire which is how they were able to navigate quite easily in these eastern provinces and sail down the Indus River to return home from Bhambore (near modern day Karachi Pakistan). Afghanistan was also part of it but is a mountainous region that offered a fraction of the wealth(exception being the Kabul valley/herat) as compared to the fertile region of the Indus, Peshawer valley and Panjab fertile rivers where wealth was in abundance. The Indus satraps where the largest revenue earners for the Persian Empire.
Archealogical evidence include the use of Persian Wheels, Aqueducts, ancient Zorastrian temples, the use of ancient persian empire scripts (Like Aramaic, Kharoshti) whereas further east across the border in india, there is no evidence of the use of these scripts. Also, Daric coins and many more still unidentified coins from the times of the Persian empire are still found all throughout Pakistan.
Most of Pakistan's pre-British Colonial History is recorded in the Persian language until the advent of Urdu which was supported by the colonial rulers to remove the still very strong influence of Persia on the Pakistan region.
Herodotus makes mentions on several occasions that the Indus Satrapy (Modern day Pakistan) supplied cavalry and chariots to the Persian Army and even mentions details such as how they were clad in armaments made of ''cotton, carried bows and arrows of cane covered with iron''
Furthermore, Perhaps it would help if you looked at some relevant maps to dispel your false notions as they clearly demonstrate that PAKISTAN was part of the Persian Empire.
The influence of the Persian Empire and Persian culture is still very strong in Pakistan and continues to influence modern day Pakistanis this is despite having a divergent recent history. Again, the neglect and misunderstandings that many have in their relationship with one another has prevented people in appreciating their important partnership in ancient times.
Here is a map of the Persian Empire under Darius some 150 years prior to Alexander's arrival clearly showing the Panjab and Frontier Region (Currently Pakistan's major populated areas representing 70% of the population) as being a part of the Persian Empire.
  |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 16:21
Interesting. I dont know what Persian maps you're talking about though or what archeological sites there are in Pakistan indicating the presence of the Achaemenids and/or Sassanids over there. Perhaps you could post some pictures or news reports of these finds here because this is the first time i've heard about this. Its not surprising that Persian coins have been found in the subcontinent because Persians traded with India and there have been coins dating back to the Sassanid empire that have been found as far away as Malaysia so that's nothing new. Persia traded with much of Asia during the Sassinid period by land and by sea. But these Persian "archeological sites" in Pakistan is news to me because according to everything i have read the only sources there are for the Persian defeat of India comes from Darius' inscription left behind in Persepolis and i believe there may also be another reference to the invasion of India in an inscription found in Egypt if im not mistaken. But these are the only proofs that Darius did invade India and extracted some of the highest tribute the Achaemenid empire received from its subordinate peoples.
Yes you're right that Indians were used in some of the Persian campaigns. The Achaemind army consisted of its primary force made up of Iranian contingents (Persians, Medes, Scythians) and then its auxiliary units who fought in their own ethnic regiments and used their own ethnic attire, equipment etc. These auxiliary units came from the subordinate peoples like the Assyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians and Indians who all were made to fight for the Persians. But this worked against the Achaemenids especially during the invasions of Greece.
By the way i wouldn't trust those maps you find online. We were discussing this on one of the other forums and these maps you find online are usually inflated and based on estimates. They also make no distinction between the territories ruled by the Achaemenids and the actual extent of how far the Persians campaigned militarily. So this is why you find parts of the subcontinent and north eastern Central Asia included in these maps which were no doubt invaded but there are no actual Persian or Greco-Roman sources on the military campaigns in India or how far Darius invaded. All that is known from Persian sources (inscriptions at Persepolis, and possibly one in Egypt) is that Darius invaded India and defeated the Indians after which the Achaemenids extracted very large tributes from them so i really wonder what archeological sites you were talking about because these have never been reported in history books or Iranian archeological and cultural surveys. |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 17:06
|
well ur right, obviously persians didn't invade india, but we are talking about the land west of the indus river, That area was never or for very little period under indian empires. It was under a lot of persian empires. so you can't really call that land indian subcontinent. |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 17:08
| The land west of indus river is on iranian plateau, which is present day baluchistan, Western sindh, western punjab and north western area o pakistan. |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 17:45
Ok i've looked at a map of where the river Indus is and yes it is likely that Darius did cross that river and invade into India (modern Pakistan) but nobody knows how far he went and the few available sources on the matter only indicate that the Achaemenids defeated the Indians after the invasion and extracted very large tributes from them.
About your other post yes the entire Baluchestan region lies on the Iranian plateau so that includes whatever Baluch territories that are now in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and yes the Baluch areas have more-or-less always been under Persian rule or under their own autonomy though politically still connected with Iran. The rest of Pakistan is in the Indian subcontinent. I dont know the history of how part of Baluchestan ended up in Pakistan but this is something that must have been quite recent because Baluchestan has very little connection to the subcontinent despite being on its border. I suspect it occurred during the Russian and British 'Great Game' but i hadnt actually thought about that before and perhaps will discuss it on the Iranian forum. |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 18:06
| well baluchistan and also north west frontier area pf pakistan which are pashtuns is also more persian. Punjab and Sindh i agree are still more indian subcontienant culture wise but with huge persian influences. Pakistan basically you could say is in the dividing line between the persians and the indians. |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 19:10
Hmmmm, no i dont agree with that at all. Pakistanis are very different from Iranians. They are similar to Indians (well most of them are Indians). Also Pashtuns (Afghans) are quite different from Persians so i dont know how you can conclude that Pashtuns are in some way 'more Persian'. More 'Persian' than what? Indian? Pashtuns are different from both Persians and Indians. Speak to any Iranian and any Afghan and you'll know what i mean. Afghans that speak Dari are close to Iran and before Afghanistan was a state most of it was under Iranian rule, but Afghan Pashtuns have a very different culture from Persians.
Baluch also have their own culture and identity which is not Persian, although both Baluch and Persians are apart of the Iranian nation. I dont think you are familiar with Persian culture or Iranian people if you think that Iran only has one culture which is 'Persian'. Iranian civilization is a whole lot more diverse than the subcontinent is and Persian culture does not extend that far east. There are Afghan, Baluch and other smaller Iranic cultures in between. |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 01:12
|
well the reason pakistan of today has less persian culture is because it has been part of the indian subcontinent for a long time. We are talking about past here not present day iran or pakistan. There was a time long ago where many parts of pakistan were under the persian empires and persian influence no matter how little is still there. |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 19:38
Thats quite innacurrate, only about 4-5% of Pakistan's ethnic groups are originally refugees/migrants from various parts of India which is not reflective of the country as a whole.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 19:40
Thats very true Anum, its odd how so much has changed and how quickly it has happened.
|
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 20:30
| its mainly because of what has happend in the last 60 years. Unfortuantly pakistanis have focused on indian culture a lot, watching their movies, practicing thier cultural practices etc.... |