Turks and Hazara are African, Blasian, Negroid, Melanesian mixed. GENETIC PROVES IT. [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 06:41 PM

Turks are a mixture of European, Middle eastern, East Asian, South Asian, Sub-Saharan

Ethnic Hazara

They have 7.5% of African mtDNA from Haplogroup L and 5.1% of haplogroup B from African Y-DNA, 1.6% of Melanesian Y-DNA ( Of course the Melanesian could be a sampled error since it's found only in one study )

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034288
http://eprints.port.ac.uk/9862/1/John_Whale_MPhil_Thesis_2012.pdf

Turkish people

Green/Yellow - East Eurasian
Blue - is west Eurasian
Purple - Australoid, Melanesian, Veddoid, South India
Orange - Sub-saharan DNA.

African mtDNA is 1.76% L in Turkey and also 1.15% in African Y-DNA

The purple colored admixture individuals are properly from Gypsies origin but the Orange are definitely from sub-saharan Africans.

http://i59.tinypic.com/30dfkzk.png

Kyrgyz

have a individual with African admixture aswell although it isn't shown in neither mtDNA nor Y-DNA.

http://i64.tinypic.com/11vp7k5.jpg

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 07:19 PM

Why no response to this decent topic or do think this is a troll thread ?

Who would have there be African ancestry in Turks even if they are at minor levels !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
They are the last place for me to think there was any African admixture and their faces don't look nothing like Africans.

Not like Southeast Asians like Thais, Malaysians, Filipino where they look liked they mixed with Negrito and Melanesians.
And the result is typical Thai faces
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7709683_f260.jpg

Negrito mtDNA M21a is predominant in Negrito tribes semangs like Batek 48% and Mendriq 84%, in total Semang have 43% M21a and total Orang ansli is 21% M21a. But according to two studies Negrito mtDNA M21a is also found in 6.9% -16.9% of Thais, we also mtDNA R22 which is common in some melanesia population found in Thais. Melanesian mtDNA and Negrito mtDNA is 7-11% in Malaysian and generally 1.5 - 4.9% in Filipino except in region where it reaches 9-15% and even Melanesian Y-DNA/Negrito Y-DNA are also 3% in Malaysians 1.1 to 5% in Filipinos but in some region it reaches 10.1 -12.1%. Although the Thais are the only population to have 0% Melanesian/Negrito Y-DNA with all of being on the maternal side they also have 5-10% of South Asian mtDNA and South Asian Y-DNA.

http://i48.tinypic.com/29o5qj5.jpg
http://chinyoke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/4137004-orang-asli-people-011.jpg

Haplogroup Q, P, M21a, R22 are considered australoid marker of Melanesian, Negrito, ancient Negroid looking people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876738/table/TB2/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2005/05/10/308.5724.1034.DC1/Macaulay.SOM.pdf

Cristiano viejo

08-02-2017, 07:26 PM

All of us already know it, Burger King...

Smeagol

08-02-2017, 07:37 PM

They had a lot of slaves.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 07:38 PM

All of us already know it, Burger King...

No you didn't know because if you did why hasn't anyone mentioned the African ancestry ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gX7Q5chnh0

Iberians managed to conquer half of the planet, and subdued many of the peoples in the old world back in the day which they were the first to create global empires for many centuries. If this is not Alpha I don't know what is.

Note:Just one response, I don't want to make a thread for one silly claim

Btw Iberians didn't conquer half of the Planet, it's only half because you conquered Amerindian tribes and also African who fought against you using with sticks and arrows. Being alpha means conquering the toughest people back than not the weakest people to expand your empire.

Here is the Indian empire of Ashoka where they conquered and defeated a power Iranian empire even though it's not as expansive as other it's more worthy that your trash Spanish empire that conquered disadvantaged people. Although India eventually fell to the rule of of Iranian empires, Arabs, Mongolic, Turkic, Burmese, Greeks, Indo-Scythian empires ruling every parts of India but in the end even the invaders were assimilated by the powerful culture of India and became Indian themselves, also making or their empire Indian in the end.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jytc87OE1DU/VLN6RcdTEiI/AAAAAAAABD8/EyhQdsr0TiQ/s1600/mauryan-empire-ashoka-265-bce%2Bcopy.jpg

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 07:46 PM

They had a lot of slaves.

Or it could be pre-origins. Although they have Sub-Saharan negroid roots we don't know what the people had looked like when they mixed with each-other.

gültekin

08-02-2017, 07:49 PM

Köstebek

08-02-2017, 07:57 PM

:picard1: The subaharan haplogroups in Anatolia, mostly in the West and Lesvos and some other islands. Including haplogroup A (Ydna)

And now, except few elites, they didnt have black slaves. It was extremely rare. Ottoman slaves usually western heritage people.

The African haplogroups are rare and ancient

Cristiano viejo

08-02-2017, 08:00 PM

No you didn't know because if you did why hasn't anyone mentioned the African ancestry ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gX7Q5chnh0

Note:Just one response, I don't want to make a thread for one silly claim

Btw Iberians didn't conquer half of the Planet, it's only half because you conquered Amerindian tribes and also African who fought against you using with sticks and arrows. Being alpha means conquering the toughest people back than not the weakest people to expand your empire.

Here is the Indian empire of Ashoka where they conquered and defeated a power Iranian empire even though it's not as expansive as other it's more worthy that your trash Spanish empire that conquered disadvantaged people. Although India eventually fell to the rule of of Iranian empires, Arabs, Mongolic, Turkic, Burmese, Greeks, Indo-Scythian empires ruling every parts of India in the end even the invaders were assimilated by the powerful culture of India and became Indian themselves, also making or their empire Indian in the end.

Dont be so ignorant, Spanish empire conquered many parts of Europe too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/af/61/b5/af61b578a8d6d08340904d7d144209e3.jpg

Subsaharan admixture - population averages. So almost everyone has some SSA on noise levels.
https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/int/image/1456/36/1456361392180.png

Dodecad k12b spreadsheet, Turkish and Spanish averages

Turkish:
Northwest_African 0
Sub_Saharan 0

Spanish:
Northwest_African 5.11
Sub_Saharan 0.40

Now shut the fuck up, Spanish quadroon. LOL
An Iberian trying to mock others with "African admixture" is ridiculous.

https://www.livescience.com/37092-southern-europeans-have-african-genes.html
The team found that for Southwestern Europeans (those from Italy, Spain and Greece), between 4 and 20 percent of their genomes came from North Africa, compared to less than 2 percent in Southeastern Europe.

You are the brown here and that is all what matters, not your ridicolous imaginary percentages.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:00 PM

Subsaharan admixture - population averages. So almost everyone has some SSA on noise levels.
https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/int/image/1456/36/1456361392180.png

Dodecad k12b spreadsheet, Turkish and Spanish averages

Turkish:
Northwest_African 0
Sub_Saharan 0

Spanish:
Northwest_African 5.11
Sub_Saharan 0.40

Now shut the fuck up, Spanish quadroon. LOL
An Iberian trying to mock others with "African admixture" is ridiculous.

https://www.livescience.com/37092-southern-europeans-have-african-genes.html
The team found that for Southwestern Europeans (those from Italy, Spain and Greece), between 4 and 20 percent of their genomes came from North Africa, compared to less than 2 percent in Southeastern Europe.

Don't trust spread sheet data because those are rubbish.

For example if they have 19 samples, and 5 of them happenen 5.11% Northwest African even if the other samples ranges from just 0-3% they would include 5.11% as the average number.

Northwest African DNA means North African Caucasian DNA. Sub-Saharan is the only black African DNA.

Your pure Northwest African will look like these

https://images.csmonitor.com/csmarchives/2010/12/1213-ALGERIA-AQIM.JPG?alias=standard_600x400

gültekin

08-02-2017, 08:05 PM

You are the brown here and that is all what matters, not your ridicolous imaginary percentages.

Says the guy who doesn't even post his photos. Your ancestors were swarthy neolithic iberians who got fucked in the ass by Celts, Germanic tribes and lastly by Moors.

Imaginary percentages my ass. Check the spreadsheet you fucking quadroon LOL http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

and also https://www.livescience.com/37092-southern-europeans-have-african-genes.html
"The team found that for Southwestern Europeans (those from Italy, Spain and Greece), between 4 and 20 percent of their genomes came from North Africa, compared to less than 2 percent in Southeastern Europe."

Don't trust spread sheet data because those are rubbish.

LOL, so why would anyone trust your homemade graphics and numbers? Spreadsheets contain population averages, no one knows where your data comes from.

gültekin

08-02-2017, 08:06 PM

Northwest African DNA means North African Caucasian DNA. Sub-Saharan is the only black African DNA.

Your pure Northwest African will look like these

https://images.csmonitor.com/csmarchives/2010/12/1213-ALGERIA-AQIM.JPG?alias=standard_600x400

North Africans are at least 20% SUB SAHARAN mixed, you don't know shit.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:07 PM

Dont be so ignorant, Spanish empire conquered many parts of Europe too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/af/61/b5/af61b578a8d6d08340904d7d144209e3.jpg

So what's so special ? You didn't conquer the strong nations such as South Asia, Turkey, Mongolia, East Asia, Central Asia, Russia, England, Germany, Egypt. All those lands that your Spanish conquered belong to weaklings at those times. You conquered only weak countries and you think you're alpha ?

90% of those lands your Spanish had conquered have nothing to be proud because they are the people who never conquered others anyway.

Cristiano viejo

08-02-2017, 08:08 PM

Says the guy who doesn't even post his photos.
The fact that you had not seen it, it does not mean I had not posted it, retard Arab.

Your ancestors were swarthy neolithic iberians who got fucked in the ass by Celts, Germanic tribes and lastly by Moors.
Moors even did not arrive to my zone. But it was funny seeing a Turk (the most mixed ethnicity of the world) talking about swarthiness, fucks etc haha

Imaginary percentages my ass. Check the spreadsheet you fucking quadroon LOL http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

I prefer to check the real life

http://www.alertadigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/turcos2.jpg

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:09 PM

North Africans are at least 20% SUB SAHARAN mixed, you don't know shit.

Except they don't look nothing like Sub-Saharan Africans so any of their black admixture doesn't count. They have 17.7 - 20.4% of those DNA are from Sub-Saharan but 79.6 - 82.3% are from Northwest Africans.

JMack

08-02-2017, 08:09 PM

Dont be so ignorant, Spanish empire conquered many parts of Europe too.

And the Portuguese raped a lot of brown asses in India in the XVI century, this guy needs to be lectured in history.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfwcgtDY4vo/Tjm9JTnmDaI/AAAAAAAABG8/MEx4xCp_LWs/s640/Mapa+imp%25C3%25A9rio+portugu%25C3%25AAs.jpg

''In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Portuguese Empire of the East, or Estado da Índia ("State of India"), with its capital in Goa, included possessions (as subjected areas with a certain degree of autonomy) in all the Asian sub-continents, East Africa, and Pacific.''

Even the city of Nagasaki in Japan was founded by the Portuguese. This gypsy is really stupid...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire#China_and_Japan

Cristiano viejo

08-02-2017, 08:11 PM

So what's so special ? You didn't conquer the strong nations such as South Asia, Turkey, Mongolia, East Asia, Central Asia, Russia, England, Germany, Egypt. All those lands that your Spanish conquered belong to weaklings at those times. You conquered only weak countries and you think you're alpha ?

90% of those lands your Spanish had conquered have nothing to be proud because they are the people who never conquered others anyway.

Sorry Burger King, I dont have forces to discuss with an ignorant like you. During the Eighty and Thirty Years Wars, Spaniards crossed and conquering larges zones of Germany, France, Belgium and Netherlands.

Saying stupidities about South Asia, Turkey, Mongolia etc does not help you.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:13 PM

Modern Spanish and Portuguese are mixture of Europeans and African slaves.

Look at mtDNA frequencies of haplogroup L which is a 100% mtDNA marker of Sub-Saharan people.

" Overall frequency in Iberia is higher in Portugal than in Spain where frequencies are only high in the south and west of the country. Increasing frequencies are observed for Galicia (3.26%) and northern Portugal (3.21%), through the center (5.02%) and to the south of Portugal (11.38%).[23] Relatively high frequencies of 7.40% and 8.30% were also reported respectively in South Spain, in the present population of Huelva and Priego de Cordoba by Casas et al. 2006.[24] Significant frequencies were also found in the Autonomous regions of Portugal, with L haplogroups constituting about 13% of the lineages in Madeira and 3.4% in the Azores. In the Spanish archipelago of Canary Islands, frequencies have been reported at 6.6%.[25] According to some researchers L lineages in Iberia are associated to Islamic invasions, while for others it may be due to more ancient processes as well as more recent ones through the introduction of these lineages by means of the modern slave trade. The highest frequency (18.2%) of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago in Spain and in Alcacer do Sal in Portugal.[26][27] "

Cristiano viejo

08-02-2017, 08:14 PM

Modern Spanish and Portuguese are mixture of Europeans and African slaves.

Still lighter and sucessful than you, Gypsy :noidea:

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:17 PM

And the Portuguese raped a lot of brown asses in India in the XVI century, this guy needs to be lectured in history.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfwcgtDY4vo/Tjm9JTnmDaI/AAAAAAAABG8/MEx4xCp_LWs/s640/Mapa+imp%25C3%25A9rio+portugu%25C3%25AAs.jpg

''In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Portuguese Empire of the East, or Estado da Índia ("State of India"), with its capital in Goa, included possessions (as subjected areas with a certain degree of autonomy) in all the Asian sub-continents, East Africa, and Pacific.''

Even the city of Nagasaki in Japan was founded by the Portuguese. This gypsy is really stupid...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire#China_and_Japan

You wish, there are no Indian-Spanish descendants and Portuguese-Indian descentdant. You ruled tiny small part of India. I don't know where you get such a fake and unrealistic map. Your people never conquered China nor Indonesia, in China your people were massacred and the Chinese allowed your to stay in Macau for a rent. In Japan it was a tradeport, in Indonesia only a tiny part and India is just a few colonies like 0.0001% of India.

Your Portuguese empire map include trade routes if not fake.

Here is your real empire.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53b17013e4b0f83f2d8a8a4a/t/53e4cc7ae4b09a46dcc9ac5a/1407503486039/Portuguese+Empire+Map.png

gültekin

08-02-2017, 08:21 PM

The fact that you had not seen it, it does not mean I had not posted it, retard Arab.

Moors even did not arrive to my zone. But it was funny seeing a Turk (the most mixed ethnicity of the world) talking about swarthiness, fucks etc haha

Turks are actually pretty homogeneous compared to a mulatto nation like you. You have both North African and Subsaharan ancestry, all the fucking studies confirm it, yet you keep living in denial.

Comparison of North African admixture levels in MDLP K16 calculator:

Moroccan 27.4%
Spanish 5.71%
Portuguese 6.20%
French - 0.99%
English - 0.69%
Basque 0.79%

1/4 of your ancestry is from Moors!

I prefer to check the real life
http://www.alertadigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/turcos2.jpg

Curly haired quadroon Iberians
http://i.imgur.com/ekRRLgg.jpg

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:22 PM

Sorry Burger King, I dont have forces to discuss with an ignorant like you. During the Eighty and Thirty Years Wars, Spaniards crossed and conquering larges zones of Germany, France, Belgium and Netherlands.

Saying stupidities about South Asia, Turkey, Mongolia etc does not help you.

Spain never conquered France, Germany while you were conquered by Napoleon and Germanic tribes for a very long time.

Here is your map of your Spanish empire most of them are just 3rd world lands and tiny dots of trade ports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire#/media/File:Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG/1920px-Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG

JMack

08-02-2017, 08:25 PM

Your Portuguese empire map include trade routes.

Trade was in many ways similar to conquest at that time. The whole Asian commerce was Portuguese dominated.

And I must ask you, how does it feel to be a nation of billions dominated by tiny nations with far less people? See, India is more than 100x bigger than Portugal and even then Portuguese managed to have a lot of territories in India.

And after the Portuguese your country fell to a single trading company (the British East India Company). It must be humiliating.

gültekin

08-02-2017, 08:29 PM

Christiano Viejo, proud Spanish member with no Subsaharan and North African ancestry
https://pbs-0.twimg.com/media/CpD4QtQWAAA8BCi.jpg:small

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:33 PM

JMack

08-02-2017, 08:42 PM

bla, bla, bla

I'm not interested in waste my time with you, but nothing you wrote change the fact that whole India have been dominated by far smaller nations. Portugal was a small nation with around 1 million inhabitants and they manage to create an empire dominating countries with way more people. That's a fact. And they owned a lot of Indian asses.

And even worst: A SINGLE TRADING COMPANY DOMINATED YOUR WHOLE COUNTRY in the XVIII and XIX centuries.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 08:49 PM

I'm not interested in waste my time with you, but nothing you wrote change the fact that whole India have been dominated by far smaller nations. Portugal was a small nation with around 1 million inhabitants and they manage to create an empire dominating countries with way more people. That's a fact. And they owned a lot of Indian asses.

And even worst: A SINGLE TRADING COMPANY DOMINATED YOUR WHOLE COUNTRY in the XVIII and XIX centuries.

Yes, I agree. India was historically dominated by many invaders that had only 1/10 to 1/1000 of the population back than but don't claim your Iberians are that great. Population has nothing to do with conquest, most countries in history were conquered by others who had far more smaller population,this is nothing unique in the Portuguese. It only takes a invading population of 30,000 to rule over a population of 10 to 100 million. I don't know if Portugal was 1 million back than but it does't make any difference. Many invading conquerors who had an army of less than 200,000 had conquered everyone populations 1000x their size.

You dominated trading..... it doesn't mean you rule them. By your logic China's Ming dynasty but have ruled large parts of Asia and Africa since everyone wanted to trade with them back than. Portuguese influences were insignificant and doesn't come 10% close to other invading groups who dominated India.

Also let's not forget your Portugal was dominated by various foreign invaders. Yes you're strong but you're not the most alpha and toughest people in the world.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 09:04 PM

Sorry Burger King, I dont have forces to discuss with an ignorant like you. During the Eighty and Thirty Years Wars, Spaniards crossed and conquering larges zones of Germany, France, Belgium and Netherlands.

Saying stupidities about South Asia, Turkey, Mongolia etc does not help you.

Let me point something out to you. If you're that alpha you would have subdue people of these regions where they historically created expansive empires and were great warriors. 98% of the people you conquered belong to people who never historically ruled other races nor did they had a impressive military history. So you're feeling macho right now because you conquered people who historically pose no military threat ? what a joke.

http://www.catalyst-project.eu/img/rf_asia-s.gif
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/asia/eastasia/eastasia_political.gif
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_world-regional-geography-people-places-and-globalization/section_11/b77c0047f6fffa6634093aa66c7a87b8.jpg

turbosat

08-02-2017, 10:56 PM

Trade was in many ways similar to conquest at that time. The whole Asian commerce was Portuguese dominated.

And I must ask you, how does it feel to be a nation of billions dominated by tiny nations with far less people? See, India is more than 100x bigger than Portugal and even then Portuguese managed to have a lot of territories in India.

And after the Portuguese your country fell to a single trading company (the British East India Company). It must be humiliating.

Portuguese just had a few coastal towns and areas around those towns. Originally they were allowed to have trading posts by local rulers.
Portuguese and other Europeans did not invade India like Alexander the Great. They came to trade and were allowed to have trading posts, but were able to gain more and more control slowly whenever local rulers became weak due to infighting and rebellions.

Sometimes Portugese were given a good hiding by Moguls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir
In 1613, the Portuguese seized the Mughal ship Rahimi, which had set out from Surat on its way with a large cargo of 100,000 rupees and Pilgrims, who were on their way to Mecca and Medina in order to attend the annual Hajj. The Rahimi was owned by Mariam-uz-Zamani, Jahangir's mother. She was referred to as Queen mother of Hindustan during his reign. Rahimi was the largest Indian ship sailing in the Red Sea and was known to the Europeans as the "great pilgrimage ship". When the Portuguese officially refused to return the ship and the passengers, the outcry at the Mughal court was unusually severe. The outrage was compounded by the fact that the owner and the patron of the ship was none other than the revered mother of the current emperor. Jahangir himself was outraged and ordered the seizure of the Portuguese town Daman. He ordered the apprehension of all Portuguese within the Mughal Empire; he further confiscated churches that belonged to the Jesuits. This episode is considered to be an example of the struggle for wealth that would later ensue and lead to colonisation of the Indian sub-continent.

Moghul ruler Shah Jahan.
In the same year (1632), he attacked the Portuguese settlements at Hoogley and Chittagong in Bengal. Both trading outposts were far from Goa, the Portuguese viceroy’s seat, and he could send no help. Portuguese prisoners were taken to Agra and kept until 1643, when they were repatriated to Goa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooghly_district
The Portuguese traders started misusing their powers. They started slave trading, robbery and converting natives into Christians by pressure. At one of point they even stopped paying taxes to the Mughal Empire. As a result, Emperor Shah Jahan ordered the then-ruler of Bengal province, Qasim Khan Juvayni, to block the city of Hooghly. This eventually led to a war in which the Portuguese were defeated comprehensively.

A love affair that saved Portuguese from Mughals
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/a-love-affair-that-saved-portuguese-from-mughals/articleshow/59719523.cms
From the time they established a settlement in Hugli with the favour of Mughal emperor Akbar, the Portuguese were comfortably living there till they managed to annoy his (grand)son (Shah Jahan) with their transgressions, leading to him sacking the settlement in 1632. As a result, "4,000 Christians were taken captives in lamentable conditions" to Agra. Juliana's parents, according to the book, are said to have been among these prisoners and so Juliana was born in Agra around 1645, by which time her mother was attached to one of the ladies in Shah Jahan's harem.

Portuguese woman, Dona Juliana Dias Da Costa, held sway over Aurangazeb’s son, Shah Alam. She not only helped safeguard Christians in the then Mughal-ruled India but also assisted in spreading on the faith in Portuguese India. A book, Juliana Nama, brings to light the role of this lady-in-waiting to Shah Alam.

ButlerKing

08-02-2017, 11:54 PM

Portuguese just had a few coastal towns and areas around those towns. Originally they were allowed to have trading posts by local rulers.
Portuguese and other Europeans did not invade India like Alexander the Great. They came to trade and were allowed to have trading posts, but were able to gain more and more control slowly whenever local rulers became weak due to infighting and rebellions.

Sometimes Portugese were given a good hiding by Moguls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir
In 1613, the Portuguese seized the Mughal ship Rahimi, which had set out from Surat on its way with a large cargo of 100,000 rupees and Pilgrims, who were on their way to Mecca and Medina in order to attend the annual Hajj. The Rahimi was owned by Mariam-uz-Zamani, Jahangir's mother. She was referred to as Queen mother of Hindustan during his reign. Rahimi was the largest Indian ship sailing in the Red Sea and was known to the Europeans as the "great pilgrimage ship". When the Portuguese officially refused to return the ship and the passengers, the outcry at the Mughal court was unusually severe. The outrage was compounded by the fact that the owner and the patron of the ship was none other than the revered mother of the current emperor. Jahangir himself was outraged and ordered the seizure of the Portuguese town Daman. He ordered the apprehension of all Portuguese within the Mughal Empire; he further confiscated churches that belonged to the Jesuits. This episode is considered to be an example of the struggle for wealth that would later ensue and lead to colonisation of the Indian sub-continent.

Moghul ruler Shah Jahan.
In the same year, he attacked the Portuguese settlements at Hoogley and Chittagong in Bengal. Both trading outposts were far from Goa, the Portuguese viceroy’s seat, and he could send no help. Portuguese prisoners were taken to Agra and kept until 1643, when they were repatriated to Goa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooghly_district
The Portuguese traders started misusing their powers. They started slave trading, robbery and converting natives into Christians by pressure. At one of point they even stopped paying taxes to the Mughal Empire. As a result, Emperor Shah Jahan ordered the then-ruler of Bengal province, Qasim Khan Juvayni, to block the city of Hooghly. This eventually led to a war in which the Portuguese were defeated comprehensively.

A love affair that saved Portuguese from Mughals
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/a-love-affair-that-saved-portuguese-from-mughals/articleshow/59719523.cms
From the time they established a settlement in Hugli with the favour of Mughal emperor Akbar, the Portuguese were comfortably living there till they managed to annoy his (grand)son (Shah Jahan) with their transgressions, leading to him sacking the settlement in 1632. As a result, "4,000 Christians were taken captives in lamentable conditions" to Agra. Juliana's parents, according to the book, are said to have been among these prisoners and so Juliana was born in Agra around 1645, by which time her mother was attached to one of the ladies in Shah Jahan's harem.

Portuguese woman, Dona Juliana Dias Da Costa, held sway over Aurangazeb’s son, Shah Alam. She not only helped safeguard Christians in the then Mughal-ruled India but also assisted in spreading on the faith in Portuguese India. A book, Juliana Nama, brings to light the role of this lady-in-waiting to Shah Alam.

That delusional Ouroboros needed just exactly this.

jackrussell

08-03-2017, 12:05 AM

Let me point something out to you. If you're that alpha you would have subdue people of these regions where they historically created expansive empires and were great warriors. 98% of the people you conquered belong to people who never historically ruled other races nor did they had a impressive military history. So you're feeling macho right now because you conquered people who historically pose no military threat ? what a joke.

http://www.catalyst-project.eu/img/rf_asia-s.gif
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/asia/eastasia/eastasia_political.gif
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_world-regional-geography-people-places-and-globalization/section_11/b77c0047f6fffa6634093aa66c7a87b8.jpg

Turks conquered many of these places .

Out of Africa Theory has a Turkana tribe in the vicinity ; Africa have Kumuk-a , East Turkestan have Kumuk-sar and Caucasia have Kumuk-ov .

There us also Kumuk lover somewhere in the ancient Indian continent too but I can't be arsed to reference it at the moment .

Kumuks are one of the proto-Turk groups ; Assyrians were bad arse to everyone and taxed their neighbours like mad.

Except Kumuks of course .

Nebuchanedzar had to fight over in Carcemish for Kumuk town.

Down the Nile Ra's Al Kumuk was the place where Kumuks bred their horses and forged steel weaponary .

Turks are Ancient and Justified .

Whatever the colour of the Turk might be ; makes no difference to Turkness in general.

Just stop claiming to represent Whites or Humanity ; you do neither .

JMack

08-03-2017, 12:27 AM

That delusional Ouroboros needed just exactly this.

Dude, it doesn't change the fact that your whole country has been defeated by a single trading company.

Now let's get some facts:

Battle of Cochin

''The celebrated heroics of the tiny Portuguese garrison, led by Duarte Pacheco Pereira, fended off an invading army several hundred times bigger. It proved a humiliating defeat for the Zamorin of Calicut. He not only failed to conquer Cochin, but his inability to crush the tiny opposition undermined the faith of his vassals and allies. The Zamorin lost much of his traditional authority over the Malabar states of India in the aftermath. The preservation of Cochin secured the continued presence of the Portuguese in India.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504)

Belligerents: Portuguese Empire vs Calicut

140 Portuguese
200–1000 Cochinese
5 vessels

vs

57,000–84,000
260 vessels

Casualties and losses: Negligible or none on the Portuguese side. 19.000 Indians.

An army of 84.000 Indians defeated by only 140 Portuguese. lol

It's a humiliating defeat. Any defeat the Portuguese suffered in India is understandable due to the fact Portuguese were always fighting against armies more than 100x bigger. But even confronting more numerous forces Portuguese won most of the battles in India. And I still can post THOUSANDS of more examples of Indians being totally humiliated by superior European men. Just face it, your people sucks at war.

I must repeat: a single British trading company was able to conquer your whole country. It's a terrible humiliation.
You were never ''KANGZ'', nigga.

Let's post some more examples of Portuguese humiliating Indians with a tiny ''army'' (in some cases not even an army, but a mere strike force).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Siege_of_Diu

''The Second Siege of Diu was a siege of the Portuguese Indian city of Diu by the Gujarat Sultanate in 1546. It ended with a major Portuguese victory.''

440 Portuguese vs 10.000 Indians.
Result: Portuguese victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

''The Portuguese conquest of Goa occurred when the governor of Portuguese India Afonso de Albuquerque captured the city in 1510. Goa was not among the cities Albuquerque had received orders to conquer: he had only been ordered by the Portuguese king to capture Hormuz, Aden and Malacca.''

Just some guys conquering a major Indian city for fun, since the king didn't ever ordered the conquest.

1600 Portuguese
220 Malabarese
3000 fighting slaves
23 ships
2000 men of Timoji

vs

over 40,000 men

Result: Obviously a Portuguese victory. lmao

The first ones to defeat any Portuguese armies were not even Indians, but Mamluks/Turks, since Indians begged for their help against the superior Portuguese. And at the end of the day, Portuguese kicked their asses too. I can post many more battles if you want.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 01:15 AM

Dude, it doesn't change the fact that your whole country has been defeated by a single trading company.

Now let's get some facts:

Battle of Cochin

''The celebrated heroics of the tiny Portuguese garrison, led by Duarte Pacheco Pereira, fended off an invading army several hundred times bigger. It proved a humiliating defeat for the Zamorin of Calicut. He not only failed to conquer Cochin, but his inability to crush the tiny opposition undermined the faith of his vassals and allies. The Zamorin lost much of his traditional authority over the Malabar states of India in the aftermath. The preservation of Cochin secured the continued presence of the Portuguese in India.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504)

Belligerents: Portuguese Empire vs Calicut

140 Portuguese
200–1000 Cochinese
5 vessels

vs

57,000–84,000
260 vessels

Casualties and losses: Negligible or none on the Portuguese side. 19.000 Indians.

An army of 84.000 Indians defeated by only 140 Portuguese. lol

It's a humiliating defeat. Any defeat the Portuguese suffered in India is understandable due to the fact Portuguese were always fighting against armies more than 100x bigger. But even confronting more numerous forces Portuguese won most of the battles in India. And I still can post THOUSANDS of more examples of Indians being totally humiliated by superior European men. Just face it, your people sucks at war.

I must repeat: a single British trading company was able to conquer your whole country. It's a terrible humiliation.
You were never ''KANGZ'', nigga.

Let's post some more examples of Portuguese humiliating Indians with a tiny ''army'' (in some cases not even an army, but a mere strike force).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Siege_of_Diu

''The Second Siege of Diu was a siege of the Portuguese Indian city of Diu by the Gujarat Sultanate in 1546. It ended with a major Portuguese victory.''

440 Portuguese vs 10.000 Indians.
Result: Portuguese victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

''The Portuguese conquest of Goa occurred when the governor of Portuguese India Afonso de Albuquerque captured the city in 1510. Goa was not among the cities Albuquerque had received orders to conquer: he had only been ordered by the Portuguese king to capture Hormuz, Aden and Malacca.''

Just some guys conquering a major Indian city for fun, since the king didn't ever ordered the conquest.

1600 Portuguese
220 Malabarese
3000 fighting slaves
23 ships
2000 men of Timoji

vs

over 40,000 men

Result: Obviously a Portuguese victory. lmao

The first ones to defeat any Portuguese armies were not even Indians, but Mamluks/Turks, since Indians begged for their help against the superior Portuguese. And at the end of the day, Portuguese kicked their asses too. I can post many more battles if you want.

You cherrypicked these events. Without the aid of the Indian locals I doubt you would have defeated them. You had superior firearms that gave you the advantages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaul

Result:Mamluk and Indian victory

The Indian made slaves out of Portuguese people.

Portuguese surrender

" 18 December, most of Goa had been overrun by advancing Indian forces, and a large party of more than two thousand Portuguese soldiers had taken position at the military base at Alparqueiros at the entrance to the port town of Vasco da Gama"

Take your time and read more. Portuguese eventually became Indian slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa#Portuguese_surrender

Internment and repatriation of POWs

" After they surrendered, the Portuguese soldiers were interned by the Indian Army at their own military camps [30] "

" Portuguese non-combatants present in Goa at the surrender—which included Mrs Vasalo D'Silva, wife of the Portuguese Governor General of Goa—were transported by 29 December to Bombay, from where they were repatriated to Portugal. Manuel Vassalo, however, remained along with approximately 3,300 Portuguese combatants as POWs in Goa.

Air Marshal S. Raghavendran, who met some of the captured Portuguese soldiers, wrote in his memoirs several years later "I have never seen such a set of troops looking so miserable in my life. Short, not particularly well built and certainly very unsoldierlike."[66]

IF INDIA HAD THE SAME MILITARY FIREPOWER THAT PORTUGUESE HAD THEY COULD TRY A THOUSAND TIMES AND STILL NOT GET ANYTHING FROM INDIA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xWkEaxbcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXCVRu9miGU

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 01:24 AM

Turks conquered many of these places .

Out of Africa Theory has a Turkana tribe in the vicinity ; Africa have Kumuk-a , East Turkestan have Kumuk-sar and Caucasia have Kumuk-ov .

There us also Kumuk lover somewhere in the ancient Indian continent too but I can't be arsed to reference it at the moment .

Kumuks are one of the proto-Turk groups ; Assyrians were bad arse to everyone and taxed their neighbours like mad.

Except Kumuks of course .

Nebuchanedzar had to fight over in Carcemish for Kumuk town.

Down the Nile Ra's Al Kumuk was the place where Kumuks bred their horses and forged steel weaponary .

Turks are Ancient and Justified .

Whatever the colour of the Turk might be ; makes no difference to Turkness in general.

Just stop claiming to represent Whites or Humanity ; you do neither .

We don't know if Kumuk are proto-Turks. They don't even live in Central Asia but in the Caucasus regions.
Speculations of their origin are not enough.

" Some historians have speculated that the Kumyks may be descendants of the Khazars, such as the Hungarian historian Ármin Vámbéry, who believed that they settled in their present territory during the flourishing period of the Khazar Khaganate in the 8th century. "

The Khazars may not may not have been Turkic, the Turkic people made up a tiny minority and god knows if they were Turkified Jews or Jewizied Turks, or Jews majority assimilated by Turkic minority or maybe not even jews but a bunch of converted Jewish caucasus people with a dominant elite Turkic minority group ruling them.

JMack

08-03-2017, 01:34 AM

You cherrypicked these events. Without the aid of the Indian locals I doubt you would have defeated them. You had superior firearms that gave you the advantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaul

I didn't cherrypicked, I can post many more if you want. Even this battle you posted proves nothing since the belligerents against the Portuguese were Mamluks/Turks and not beta Indians. This battle just proves what I said that the first (and one of the few) Portuguese defeats in the Indian Ocean was not even due to Indians but to MENA Muslims, who had their ass kicked some few moments after.

Portuguese were kings of the Indian Ocean in the XVI century, a small nation with 1 million inhabitants brutallizing a lot of Asiatic Betas.

I will repeat my argument because you didn't understood it:

Any defeat the Portuguese suffered in India is understandable due to the fact Portuguese were always fighting against armies more than 100x bigger. But even confronting more numerous forces Portuguese won most of the battles in India. And I still can post THOUSANDS of more examples of Indians being totally humiliated by superior European men. Just face it, your people sucks at war.

You're from an owned people militarly, that's a fact. And I'm not saying it cause I hate Indians, I admire a lot of things in your culture like philosophy or the traditional religion. But we must remain faithful to the fact Indians are bad warriors and weak men.

I don't know about any country with so large population that have been overrun by a single trading company.

The numbers are amazing, like 100 Portuguese defeating thousands and thousands of Indians without any single loss of lives. At the worst perspective 5 or 10 men died. Even in face to face battle Portuguese massacred the Indians easily. The few Indian allies (like 1000 or 2000 guys at most battles) Portuguese had means nothing since they were being commanded by superior European commanders/strategists. Face it.

The only major victory Indians had was recapturing Goa when Portugal was already weakened and no longer a major power in the XX century, haha. :dunno:

European men owned Indians. Simple.

I will remind you one more time: A SINGLE TRADING COMPANY conquered your whole country, curry boy.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 01:38 AM

No, trade routes only allowed you to do trades

Most of your tiny insignificant colonies in India had no real power over India, in Sri Lanka yes but not in India. You were only allowed to be in India because of other European powers.

Give me a break, you only dominated others because you had firearms. Had you fought hand to hand , or weapon by weapon. Your Iberians would have still have been slaves of Romans, Arabs, Moors. You gotta understand India once defeated a powerful Persian empire that even defeated the Roman empire, after that they became weak but historically Indians had a longer history of establishing empires long before your Iberians did in the 16th century.

There's a reason why Portugal and Spain don't produce any world champions in boxing, kickboxing because your people are physically weak but were excellent with the rifles.

Precisely.

JMack

08-03-2017, 01:40 AM

Precisely.

I knew you would jump here, haha.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 01:40 AM

I knew you would jump here, haha.

lol

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 01:49 AM

I didn't cherrypicked, I can post many more if you want. Even this battle you posted proves nothing since the belligerents against the Portuguese were Mamluks/Turks and not beta Indians. This battle just proves what I said that the first (and one of the few) Portuguese defeats in the Indian Ocean was not even due to Indians but to MENA Muslims, who had their ass kicked some few moments after.

Portuguese were kings of the Indian Ocean in the XVI century, a small nation with 1 million inhabitants brutallizing a lot of Asiatic Betas.

I will repeat my argument because you didn't understood it:

Any defeat the Portuguese suffered in India is understandable due to the fact Portuguese were always fighting against armies more than 100x bigger. But even confronting more numerous forces Portuguese won most of the battles in India. And I still can post THOUSANDS of more examples of Indians being totally humiliated by superior European men. Just face it, your people sucks at war.

You're from an owned people militarly, that's a fact. And I'm not saying it cause I hate Indians, I admire a lot of things in your culture like philosophy or the traditional religion. But we must remain faithful to the facts Indians are bad warriors and weak men.

I don't know about any country with so large population that have been overrun by a single trading company.

The numbers are amazing, like 100 Portuguese defeating thousands and thousands of Indians without any single loss of lives. At the worst perspective 5 or 10 men died. Even in face to face battle Portuguese massacred the Indians easily. The few Indian allies (like 1000 or 2000 guys at most battles) means nothing since they were being commanded by superior European commanders/strategists. Face it.

The only major victory Indians had was recapturing Goa when Portugal was already weakened and no longer a major power in the XX century, haha. :dunno:

European men owned Indians. Simple.

I will remind you one more time: A SINGLE TRADING COMPANY conquered your whole country, curry boy.

Firstable you don't know if I'm Indian or not but I know a insecure Portuguese who brag about your achievements of conquering weaklings.
You want to Mamluk Turks to take the credit but here is another battle for you to remember.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli

Decisive Indian victory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

Decisive Indian victory

Result

Indian
casualties 22

Portuguese
Casualties 30
Wounded 57
Frigate disable 1
POW 4668 <----------- ( 4668 Portuguese prisoners of wars )

You going to give the credits to Mamluk Turks ? Once Indians have firepower the Portuguese became nothing more than slaves, they were beaten, castrated and treated like animals and licking the boots of Indian commanders.

Tell me why Indians captured nearly 5000 Portuguese slaves and most of them were combatants ?

JMack

08-03-2017, 01:53 AM

Firstable you don't know if I'm Indian or not but I know a insecure Portuguese who brag about your achievements of conquering weaklings.
You want to Mamluk Turks the credit but here is another battle for you to remember

You have only XX century battles to brag about.

And I'm not Portuguese btw, I'm 75% Italian and 25% Portuguese.

I'm just proving the obvious fact that European men are better warriors than Indians.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 01:58 AM

You have only XX century battles to brag about.

And I'm not Portuguese btw, I'm 75% Italian and 25% Portuguese.

I'm just proving the obvious fact that European men are better warriors than Indians.

Firstable you're from Brazil. Many Europeans of Brazil are generally Portuguese descent but I don't know if you're lying about your background or not.

You're trying to prove that Portuguese were superior to Indians based on the fact that you way more advantage in terms of firepower.

Look at every other Indian-Portuguese war when both had firearms. Why couldn't they do the same ?

Also Indians once conquered the Persians who once also conquered southern parts of europe. If Portuguese and Indian had a ancient battle the Portuguese will lose anyday.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 02:17 AM

JMack

08-03-2017, 02:21 AM

Firstable you're from Brazil. Many Europeans of Brazil are generally Portuguese descent but I don't know if you're lying about your background or not.

You're trying to prove that Portuguese were superior to Indians based on the fact that you way more advantage in terms of firepower.

Look at every other Indian-Portuguese war when both had firearms. Why couldn't they do the same ?

Also Indians once conquered the Persians who once also conquered southern parts of europe. If Portuguese and Indian had a ancient battle the Portuguese will lose anyday.

I'm not 100% Portuguese and there's no reason to lie about it. I'm proud of my Portuguese background, but this discussion doesn't have anything to do with my background anyway.

What really matters is that I stated facts, only facts. Portuguese and Indians would never have any battle in antiquity since Portuguese as a distinguished ethnicity started to exist in the last centuries of the Middle Ages. Before that the only thing we have that approximate ''Portuguese'' were Iberians, Celts and Celtiberians and they have been defeated by the Carthaginians and Romans many times, what's the problem to admit it? But they also gave Rome some Emperors as well.

That said, my whole argument is that Europeans as a whole are better warriors than Indians and this is undeniable. The Portuguese were just some examples I was giving to show Europeans triturating Indians. I pointed also to the fact your whole country have been dominated by a single trading company. You are only independent because it's unfashionable to have colonies in the West due to leftism and cucked ideologies.

You can be proud of Vedanta and other similar stuff, pretty great, but war is definitely not Indian soil.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 02:28 AM

I'm not 100% Portuguese and there's no reason to lie about it. I'm proud of my Portuguese background, but this discussion doesn't have nothing to do with my background anyway.

What really matters is that I stated facts, only facts. Portuguese and Indians would never any battle in antiquity since Portuguese as a distinguished ethnicity started to exist in the last centuries of the Middle Ages. Before that the only thing we have that approximate ''Portuguese'' were Iberians, Celts and Celtiberians and they have been defeated by the Carthaginians and Romans many times, what's the problem to admit it? But they also gave Rome some Emperors as well.

That said, my whole argument is that Europeans as a whole are better warriors than Indians and this is undeniable. The Portuguese were just some examples I was giving to show Europeans triturating Indians. I pointed also to the fact your whole country have been dominated by a single trading company. You are only independent because it's unfashionable to have colonies in the West due to leftism and cucked ideologies.

You can be proud of Vedanta and other similar stuff, pretty great, but war is definitely not Indian soil.

Okay.... you claimed Indians were weak. I suggest you take a look list of Indian kingdoms, empires. Even the smallest Indian kingdom was 2x the of Portugal/Iberia. Your Iberians didn't even have any kingdom that expanded historically, you only did so in the 16th century.

You said Europeans.... last time I checked a few European countries doesn't make majority. What about Poland, Ukraine, Albania, Czech Republic, Ireland, Scotland ect I mean 90% of the European countries didn't achieved what others did.

INDIAN SOLDIERS WERE USED FOR WWII , remember that !!!!

A history lesson for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_II

" The Indian Army during World War II began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[1] By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.[1][2] Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia.[1] "

" The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 87,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded, and 67,340 became prisoners of war.[3][4] Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 18 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942, asserted that the British "couldn't have come through both wars (World War I and II) if they hadn't had the Indian Army."[5][6] British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also paid tribute to "The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers."[5] "

JMack

08-03-2017, 02:36 AM

Okay.... you claimed Indians were weak. I suggest you take a look list of Indian kingdoms, empires. Even the smallest Indian kingdom was 2x the of Portugal/Iberia. Your Iberians didn't even have any kingdom that expanded historically, you only did so in the 16th century.

You said Europeans.... last time I checked a few European countries doesn't make majority. What about Poland, Ukraine, Albania, Czech Republic, Ireland, Scotland ect I mean 90% of the European countries didn't achieved what others did.

In the 16th century Iberians constructed empires larger than any Indian Empire recorded in history. We can also say that the Iberian Empire after the Spanish king became king of Portugal (1580-1640) was one of the biggest of all times, definitely a top 5. It's called the Iberian Union.

Indians only succeeded against other Indians, when fighting against other peoples they succumbed. Culturally and economically India was the most advanced place in the world when Muslims took over, but militarly Indians never managed to conquer significantly outside India.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 02:41 AM

In the 16th century Iberians constructed empires larger than any Indian Empire recorded in history. We can also say that the Iberian Empire after the Spanish king became king of Portugal (1580-1640) was one of the biggest of all times, definitely a top 5. It's called the Iberian Union.

Indians only succeeded against other Indians, when fighting against other peoples they succumbed. Culturally and economically India was the most advanced place in the world when Muslims took over, but militarly Indians never managed to conquer significantly outside India.

You're a joke and a racist obviously. Iberians before the 16th century? I don't think so.

Depends on what time, Europeans were better as whole when they had firearms. Alexander the Great was killed by Indians who shot a arrow on his chest.

Ancient Persians were as strong as the Romans and Greeks and no other Europeans could come to their level. The Persian Alcheamid empire ended conquering parts of Greece and and all the the borders of Southeast Europe.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Achaemenid_Empire_%28flat_map%29.svg/672px-Achaemenid_Empire_%28flat_map%29.svg.png

Eastern Persia was conquered by India. And these were ancient Iranians who were powerful.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jytc87OE1DU/VLN6RcdTEiI/AAAAAAAABD8/EyhQdsr0TiQ/s1600/mauryan-empire-ashoka-265-bce%2Bcopy.jpg

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 02:46 AM

JMack

08-03-2017, 02:50 AM

You're a joke and a racist obviously. Iberians before the 16th century? I don't think so.

Depends on what time, Europeans were better as whole when they had firearms. Alexander the Great was killed by Indians who shot a arrow on his chest.

Ancient Persians were as strong as the Romans and Greeks and no other Europeans could come to their level. The Persian Alcheamid empire ended conquering parts of Greece and and all the the borders of Southeast Europe/

Alexander died due to a disease or have been poisoned by his opositors in Macedonian court. These are the most accepted explanations.

If was not for his weak/coward men who wanted to go back he would have conquered India easily. See, the Indians who fighted against him were brave (the ancestors of Jatts), probably the best fighters he encountered, but they have been defeated the same way.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/fb/f5/e2fbf54547038b0e52e23e515231aeae.jpg

As for the Persians, yes, I agree, they were great. What then? They're not Indians anyway.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 02:53 AM

Although I do admit that Indians were weak for most of history but still better than the history of Iberia pre-16th century.

To the Northwest India , it was conquered by Arabs, Greeks, Scythians, Persians, Mongols, Mongoloid Turks, Or Mongoloid/Hybrid caucasian

To the North of India it was conquered by Tibetan, Kushans, Iranian clans

To the East India it was conquered by by Burmese tribes, Bengali

And most of India was under the rule of Central Asian origin such as Dehli Sultanate, Mughal empire and many other Indian kingdom.

I know fully well in Indian military history. I've sometimes watch Indian documentary and it says the downfall started after Ashoka and internal conflicts which made India weak.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:03 AM

Alexander died due to a disease or have been poisoned by his opositors in Macedonian court. These are the most accepted explanations.

If was not for his weak/coward men who wanted to go back he would have conquered India easily. See, the Indians who fighted against him were brave (the ancestors of Jatts), probably the best fighters he encountered, but they have been defeated the same way.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/fb/f5/e2fbf54547038b0e52e23e515231aeae.jpg

As for the Persians, yes, I agree, they were great. What then? They're not Indians anyway.

He was wounded and died as result of the Indian war. Don't forget the greeks retreated and weren't able to get through the Indian sub-continent.
The ancient Europeans were great warriors but they didn't had the endurance of ancient Indian warriors that's why the Greeks could conquer Egypt, Iran and other civilizations in middle east but not India. Indians were considered exotic by Europeans in the past.

There's a reason why white women prefer Indian men over white men, not only because they have higher testosterone but also because Indians were considered more "exotic" that's why during the British colony of India they came to India and wanted Indians to be part of the white race and they allowed them to marry white women. I know so many white girls from Portugal, Spain, England, Russia, Germany that wants to marry Indian men and would prefer them over.

There's a lot of bad negative stereotypes from the western media against Indians. For example the gypsies are not Indian origin. They are genetically 80% European and 20% of unknown northwest Indian origin or properly located in modern day Afghanistan, they have neither the intelligent nor physical abilities of Indians. Indians are successful but I understand a lot of racist Europeans tend to look down on tell and try to relate them with gypsies who are genetically 80% European.

JMack

08-03-2017, 03:06 AM

Although I do admit that Indians were weak for most of history but still better than the history of Iberia pre-16th century.

Before the end of the 15th and 16th century Iberia was not that great, I agree. History comes and goes, after some centuries of irrelevance Iberians managed to conquer more than half of the world. The Age of Discoveries is one of the greatest enterprises in human history.

Anyway Iberians as we know today emerged in the fight against the Moors, there was no Portuguese, Spaniards, Basques, Catalans etc. before moorish invasion.

India is one of the ancient civilization sites in human history and developed a great culture (philosophy, architecture, religion etc.), but Indians were never able to conquer foreign civilizations. That's a fact. Maybe it was not so important considering the main cultural trends of Indian civilization, like spirituality and the search for liberation.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:13 AM

Both Indians and Europeans are part of the caucasoid race however because of the South Indian ( ASI ) admixture that's prevalent in Indians especially in South Indian dravidian speakers many tried not to classified them as Caucasoid because it is indeed a component that's indigenous to India and is obviously not a west eurasian component however Indians are Caucasoids especially northern types.

There is nothing wrong with ASI admixture, I think it's this what made Indians the most attractive among caucasoid race (for example bollywood actress miss world and universe 4-5 times ),

Indians women are considered the most attractive in the ancient times and Indian men are one of the most desired people. Not all Indians are attractive but on average they are as goodlooking as Italians are. Among Europeans in England I find the Irish the most attractive while the Anglo-saxon women are quite repulsive.

JMack

08-03-2017, 03:17 AM

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:18 AM

Before the end of the 15th and 16th century Iberia was not that great, I agree. History comes and goes, after some centuries of irrelevance Iberians managed to conquer more than half of the world. The Age of Discoveries is one of the greatest enterprises in human history.

Anyway Iberians as we know today emerged in the fight against the Moors, there was no Portuguese, Spaniards, Basques, Catalans etc. before moorish invasion.

India is one of the ancient civilization sites in human history and developed a great culture (philosophy, architecture, religion etc.), but Indians were never able to conquer foreign civilizations. That's a fact. Maybe it was not so important considering the main cultural trends of Indian civilization, like spirituality and the search for liberation.

I agree. Portuguese never developed a great culture. What the hell are you still trying to call Indians weak? Indians could conquer foreign civilization if the were wanted but were more focused on philosophy, culture, wealth, religion, spiritual beliefs unlike barbarian of Europe/Iberia.

I mean I can see you're saying good things about India but you're also being a hypocrite by still trying to call them weak ? if Indians are weak why are white women marrying Indian men ?

JMack

08-03-2017, 03:19 AM

I agree. Portuguese never developed a great culture. What the hell are you still trying to call Indians weak? Indians could conquer foreign civilization if the were wanted but were more focused on philosophy, culture, wealth, religion, spiritual beliefs unlike barbarian of Europe/Iberia.

I mean I can see you're saying good things about India but you're also being a hypocrite by still trying to call them weak ? if Indians are weak why are white women marrying Indian men ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I thought you were normal, lol.

Are all Indians that problematic?

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:23 AM

LOL

You have issues, man.

No one is talking about these things here.

I'm talking about it. I mean despite all your praising the overall message is you want to accept that. " Indians can't conquer like Europeans ", " " Indians are too weak against Europeans " , " Indians are unable to achieved it because they not physically strong enough "

You're wrong. India is one the world most advance and one of the world most strong. Even today it is the 4th world most powerful nation and can destroy Iberian in seconds if it's wanted to. Indian in the past also had the potential to establish a world empire.

( At least I'm being fair here, I didn't say India is the world most advance because there is also Egypt, China to think about. Just like you shouldn't say Iberians or Europeans were greatest conquerors because you have to think about Mongols, Turkic, Japanese, Ottomans, Arabs, Qing, Persians )

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:28 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I thought you were normal, lol.

Are all Indians that problematic?

Whatever, I proved my point already.

Iberians and Indians are both alpha males.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:32 AM

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:35 AM

Here in America I see loads of non-Indians going after Indian females, unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us) Indians mostly stick with Indians.

i've noticed its latino mischlings and mongoloids who love white people the most, followed by MENAs and Blacks

Unfortunately , I don't believe you because there is not evidence you're even South Asian origin let alone Indian.

Sorry to disappoint you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYkaOnNP3s

JMack

08-03-2017, 03:36 AM

Lol

Indians living in the West are really a group with issues.

I know it should be shitty to live in a place where you can be detected as foreigner all the time. But come on guys, get over it.

JMack

08-03-2017, 03:37 AM

Ross: the Indian who wants to prove white men doesn't fuck the pussies of Indian women.

Butlerking: The Indian who wants to prove Indians fuck the pussies of white women.

hahahahahaha

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:37 AM

Lol

Indians living in the West are really a group with issues.

I know it should be shitty to live in a place where you can be detected as foreigner all the time. But come on guys, get over it.

Indians in the west don't have the time of the day to even think about some portuguese like you. We're the most successful ethnic group here and YOU are the one who'd be seen as a foreigner where I live.

If you really think any Indian here cares what you think then you might as believe in UFO abductions

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:38 AM

Unfortunately , I don't believe you because there is not evidence you're even South Asian origin let alone Indian.

Sorry to disappoint you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYkaOnNP3s

I'm talking about Indian women dating non-Indians.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:41 AM

Lol

Indians living in the West are really a group with issues.

I know it should be shitty to live in a place where you can be detected as foreigner all the time. But come on guys, get over it.

Most Indians have no problem in the west. The ones with the real problem are those of muslim backgrounds, their the ones who have most problem assimilating while the vast majority of Indian youths have no problem.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:47 AM

Ross: the Indian who wants to prove white men doesn't fuck the pussies of Indian women.

Butlerking: The Indian who wants to prove Indians fuck the pussies of white women.

hahahahahaha

Whatever you want to say. If you want to talk about "alpha male " there are more European women married to Indian men than Indian women married to European men. I'm not here talking about white pussies, just want to show you who's the alpha male.

You called Indian men beta but last time I checked no women likes beta male :) hahahahahahaha, I like that feeling of you "regretting" what you said. Maybe if you didn't talk so much trash in the beginning than I wouldn't need to post this to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4ok7SLpIg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmGn1M6Mwmk

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:48 AM

Most Indians have no problem in the west. The ones with the real problem are those of muslim backgrounds, their the ones who have most problem assimilating while the vast majority of Indian youths have no problem.

By the way I've seen LOADS of Indian guys here with White girls (mainly Northwest European mutt types). But I hardly see Indian girls with non-Indians.

I believe Indians should mainly marry Indians, to keep our ethnicity and race pure and free of non-Indian names in our family trees.

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 03:52 AM

No you can't pass in any european countries you fucking pieces of brown shits

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:53 AM

No you can't pass in any european countries you fucking pieces of brown shits

This is an Indo-Aryan convention, get the fuck outta here.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 03:53 AM

By the way I've seen LOADS of Indian guys here with White girls (mainly Northwest European mutt types). But I hardly see Indian girls with non-Indians.

I believe Indians should mainly marry Indians, to keep our ethnicity and race pure and free of non-Indian names in our family trees.

Because Indian women are not interested in men of other races. Indians have a better careers than European male, they are more family-oriented, more exotic than your pink skin European boys.

Both Indians and Europeans belong to the caucasoid race but Indians are considered the most exotic for their variety of eye colors, skin complexions. I don't mind Indians and Europeans marrying.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 03:56 AM

Because Indian women are not interested in men of other races. Indians have a better careers than European male, they are more family-oriented, more exotic than your pink skin European boys.

Both Indians and Europeans belong to the caucasoid race but Indians are considered the most exotic for their variety of eye colors, skin complexions. I don't mind Indians and Europeans marrying.

Higher median household incomes, higher educational attainment, lower incarceration, lower illegitimacy, lower rates of drug/alcohol abuse, etc

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 03:58 AM

This is an Indo-Aryan convention, get the fuck outta here.

Shut the fuck up you brown midget virgin. Go drink some cow's piss. Im 196cm tall without shoes on.

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:00 AM

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 04:03 AM

No you can't pass in any european countries you fucking pieces of brown shits

Some South Asians can although they would be considered exotic. Some could blend in with the European populations of Cyprus, Armenia, South Italy, Albanians, Greece, Portugal, Spain since these places have plenty of exotic swarthy types aswell.

Despite their Indid appearance the chances of them blending in among the South European populations are not that low either.

http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/2015/04/20/329149-hrithik-hi-res-2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/23/1e/a7231e7d29452a82556c9778d6d02041--desi-guys-aamir-khan.jpg

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:05 AM

Some South Asians can although they would be considered exotic. Some could blend in with the European populations of Cyprus, Armenia, South Italy, Albanians, Greece, Portugal, Spain since these places have plenty of exotic swarthy types aswell.

Despite their Indid appearance the chances of them blending in among the South European populations are not that low either.

http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/2015/04/20/329149-hrithik-hi-res-2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/23/1e/a7231e7d29452a82556c9778d6d02041--desi-guys-aamir-khan.jpg

Now hold on, what the fuck did you just say?

Fractal

08-03-2017, 04:06 AM

Shut the fuck up you brown midget virgin. Go drink some cow's piss. Im 196cm tall without shoes on.

Russians are not Aryan. Indians are

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:07 AM

Russians are not Aryan. Indians are

you wouldn't say that to my face, fucking coward. the other night I beat the shit outta some gypsy who stared at me too long.

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 04:14 AM

Now hold on, what the fuck did you just say?

I'm saying they could blend in some uncommon swarthy exotic types Europeans that are sometimes found in the south Europeans.

Some North Indids have a pseudo-European look that helps them easier to blend.

Compare those two with these Armenians and Albanians, they can easily pass for some sort of exotic type euro's.

http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/armenia470922598.jpg
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/world/2017/01/21/kosovo-albanians-call-for-ex-premier-release-in-france/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1485024535853.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:16 AM

I'm saying they could blend in some uncommon swarthy exotic types Europeans that are sometimes found in the south Europeans.

Some North Indids have a pseudo-European look that helps them easier to blend.

Compare those two with these Armenians and Albanians, they can easily pass for some sort of exotic type euro's.

http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/armenia470922598.jpg
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/world/2017/01/21/kosovo-albanians-call-for-ex-premier-release-in-france/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1485024535853.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

My IQ isnt really 147, it's 155+ as it turns out. What are you doing on a european forum you fucking gypsy?

Fractal

08-03-2017, 04:16 AM

you wouldn't say that to my face, fucking coward. the other night I beat the shit outta some gypsy who stared at me too long.

Russians are nothing but bacterial slavic PUS.

Indians are the true Aryan rasse.

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:17 AM

Russians are nothing but bacterial slavic PUS.

Indians are the true Aryan rasse.

I bench 205, how about you?

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 04:18 AM

How was African DNA implanted into the Hazara population? At what point did they even encounter an isolated people in Central/South Asia?

That's what I wanted to know aswell. I made a thread about it. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?216968-Hazara-with-African-mtDNA-L-and-African-haplogroup-B-M60

According to blog comments, it could have arrived either from the slave trade to Afghanistan or it was actually from Iranian people themselves. Iranian themselves have African DNA in both Y-DNA and mtDNA so maybe it's from that reason but I'm not sure.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 04:21 AM

I bench 205, how about you?

I use dumbbells (50-60 lbs ones) for bench.

You'd never be able to afford to live in the same areas as Indians do in the USA hahaha. And most Russians here work for Indians.

Fractal

08-03-2017, 04:24 AM

That's what I wanted to know aswell. I made a thread about it. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?216968-Hazara-with-African-mtDNA-L-and-African-haplogroup-B-M60

According to blog comments, it could have arrived either from the slave trade to Afghanistan or it was actually from Iranian people themselves. Iranian themselves have African DNA in both Y-DNA and mtDNA so maybe it's from that reason but I'm not sure.

Iranids always want to mix with Indian women, I see the males always eye balling them

blondbeast

08-03-2017, 04:25 AM

I use dumbbells (50-60 lbs ones) for bench.

hahahah little girly man uses dumbbells like a dummy. Dude im 196cm tall without socks on, hbu?

Fractal

08-03-2017, 04:50 AM

hahahah little girly man uses dumbbells like a dummy. Dude im 196cm tall without socks on, hbu?

take a guess. everyone here knows.

Anyways my uncle needs Russian plumbers at his hotel. Do you have a resume?

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 05:01 AM

I don't see one single Negroid influenced looking Hazara which makes me think did these African haplogroups even looked African by the time their Mongol ancestors invaded ?

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/11/11/654ea4e3c53c4b4383894b3b2c294eaf_18.jpg

jackrussell

08-03-2017, 09:13 AM

We don't know if Kumuk are proto-Turks. They don't even live in Central Asia but in the Caucasus regions.
Speculations of their origin are not enough.

" Some historians have speculated that the Kumyks may be descendants of the Khazars, such as the Hungarian historian Ármin Vámbéry, who believed that they settled in their present territory during the flourishing period of the Khazar Khaganate in the 8th century. "

The Khazars may not may not have been Turkic, the Turkic people made up a tiny minority and god knows if they were Turkified Jews or Jewizied Turks, or Jews majority assimilated by Turkic minority or maybe not even jews but a bunch of converted Jewish caucasus people with a dominant elite Turkic minority group ruling them.

You don't know much about the subject matter , thats for sure .

turbosat

08-03-2017, 09:46 AM

turbosat

08-03-2017, 09:47 AM

I bench 205, how about you?

Only a gorilla can bench more than you.

Cristiano viejo

08-03-2017, 02:50 PM

Turks are actually pretty homogeneous compared to a mulatto nation like you. You have both North African and Subsaharan ancestry, all the fucking studies confirm it, yet you keep living in denial.
Turks homogeneous?? hahahaha best joke of the year :1127:

Sorry, it is you who have North African and SSA ancestry, just read this thread :thumb001:

Comparison of North African admixture levels in MDLP K16 calculator:

Moroccan 27.4%
Spanish 5.71%
Portuguese 6.20%
French - 0.99%
English - 0.69%
Basque 0.79%

It makes sense... :laugh: Moroccans only being 27% North Africans :laugh:
Go to the bath, brown being :p

1/4 of your ancestry is from Moors!
Moors in fact were your brothers against Europeans, part of the same Ottoman empire, and as brown and ugly as Turks :noidea:

Curly haired quadroon Iberians
Please brown being with dozens of different ancestries... dont make me to post the hundreds of thousands of pictures of swarthy, brown, ugly, unibrow and mongrel Turks that exist...

Spain never conquered France, Germany while you were conquered by Napoleon and Germanic tribes for a very long time.
Napoleon never conquered Spain, Gypsy ignorant :lol: Napoleon was defeated as fuck. As himself said "Spain was the beginning of my end".

And yes, during the 80 Years War and the 30 Years War, and even before, Spaniards conquered and defeated French in France and specially Germans/Dutch in Germany as fuck, learn a bit of history with some tiny examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_(1634)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Calais_(1596)

Even Paris was occupied during 3 years for the Spanish army, since 1590 until 1593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(1590)

Here is your map of your Spanish empire most of them are just 3rd world lands and tiny dots of trade ports.

Thanks for the map, one of the most amazing empires ever, if not the most :p

But are you calling 3rd world to Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Portugal? :eyes:
And how do you call weak people to Americans... when Asians were same of weak?

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 06:56 PM

Afghan Pashtuns also have some African mTDNA.

So maybe African mtDNA came from Pasthun when Mongol mixed with them ?

Or was African mtDNA seperate?

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 07:34 PM

Napoleon never conquered Spain, Gypsy ignorant :lol: Napoleon was defeated as fuck. As himself said "Spain was the beginning of my end".

And yes, during the 80 Years War and the 30 Years War, and even before, Spaniards conquered and defeated French in France and specially Germans/Dutch in Germany as fuck, learn a bit of history with some tiny examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_(1634)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Calais_(1596)

Even Paris was occupied during 3 years for the Spanish army, since 1590 until 1593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(1590)

Thanks for the map, one of the most amazing empires ever, if not the most :p

But are you calling 3rd world to Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Portugal? :eyes:
And how do you call weak people to Americans... when Asians were same of weak?

Never conquered Spain? Get your eyes and history checked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Spain_under_Joseph_Bonaparte

Joseph Bonarparte a French nobleman who was king of spain from 1808 - 1803

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bonaparte

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/images/napoleonic.jpg

Hope you understand being alpha is conquering the strongest warriors not the weak. The Spanish empire conquered mostly weaklings who never created a impressive empire.

I think it's time again to teach you a history lesson to stop your delusional alpha believes.

You didn't conquered the Arabs who created this empire which originated from now Saudi Arabia
http://www.gifex.com/images/0X0/2009-12-10-11399/Chronological-map-of-the-Arab-Empire-632-945.png

You didn't conquered the Mongolians who created the Mongol empire which now originated from Mongolia
https://d3pl14o4ufnhvd.cloudfront.net/v2/uploads/7be47335-caac-4965-8580-b1737a896bd4/0093b2fece0b8284d296438930d9e758cccc56a2_original. jpg

You didn't conquered the Turkish who created the Ottoman empire which originated from Turkey

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/OttomanEmpireIn1683.png

You didn't conquered the Manchu/Chinese who created the Qing dynasty which originates from Northeast China Manchuria

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Qing_Dynasty_1820.png

You didn't conquer Japanese who created the Japanese empire from Japan
http://i.imgur.com/J7e31sn.png

You didn't conquered the Persian/Iranian who created the several Iranian which originated from Iran

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/achaemenid_empire_480_bc.png
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e4/12/9b/e4129b7950c233852f8396c1d0c2d205.jpg

You didn't conquered Chinese which created the Tang dynasty which originated from China

http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Map-of-Tang-Dynasty-in-663-AD.jpg

You didn't conquered Central Asians who historically ruled, enslaved, conquered regions of Europe, Middle east, South Asia, East Asia, Caucasus. Africa for thousand years

From [b]Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan[b]

Kazakh Khanate - which didn't conquered much but hundred thousands of slaves everywhere from East Europe to Middle east. Caucasus

http://i46.tinypic.com/idhfza.png

Timurid dynasty/Mughal empire

The great conqueror of Timurlane was of Uzbek/Mongol origin from Uzbekistan
http://i57.tinypic.com/9ve8gi.gif

Mughal empire
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/71/ce/df71ce89d03676b6903d5a7c81568252--first-battle-of-panipat-persian-people.jpg

Seljuk empire most of middle east to Turkey
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Seljuk_Empire_locator_map.svg/1200px-Seljuk_Empire_locator_map.svg.png

ButlerKing

08-03-2017, 07:44 PM

turbosat

08-03-2017, 10:12 PM

So maybe African mtDNA came from Pasthun when Mongol mixed with them ?

Or was African mtDNA seperate?

There is a study of Afghan mtDNA by John Whale. http://eprints.port.ac.uk/9862/1/John_Whale_MPhil_Thesis_2012.pdf

Hazara have African L3 mtDNA at 7.5% and Pashtun have L3 at 14.3%.

"The Hazara and Pashtun populations have exhibited lower frequencies than the Makrani, 7.5% and 14.3%, while this lineage is absent among the Tajiks and Baloch populations of Afghanistan (Table 5.2). This infrequent African lineage is likely to have been introduced into the Afghani population, as well as some adjacent populations, as a consequence of the Arab invasion in the 7th century."

Hazara have East Asian mtDNA Lineages at 37.5% and Pashtuns have East Asian Lineages at 14.3% similar to their African mtDNA percentage.
Afghan Tajik have East Asian mtDNA at 10.5%, and Afghan Baloch have 13.4%.

Hazara have some African yDNA B-M60 at 5% from Haber Study.
We also note the presence of the African B-M60 only in Hazara, with a relatively recent common founder ancestor from East Africa as shown in theRMnetwork (Figure S1D).

Siberian Cold Breeze

08-04-2017, 12:56 AM

Small amount of African DNA is good , it protects from malaria .
Most Africans are prettier than MENA people , so no problem

https://i.hizliresim.com/r2D86V.jpg

ButlerKing

08-04-2017, 02:14 AM

There is a study of Afghan mtDNA by John Whale. http://eprints.port.ac.uk/9862/1/John_Whale_MPhil_Thesis_2012.pdf

Hazara have African L3 mtDNA at 7.5% and Pashtun have L3 at 14.3%.

"The Hazara and Pashtun populations have exhibited lower frequencies than the Makrani, 7.5% and 14.3%, while this lineage is absent among the Tajiks and Baloch populations of Afghanistan (Table 5.2). This infrequent African lineage is likely to have been introduced into the Afghani population, as well as some adjacent populations, as a consequence of the Arab invasion in the 7th century."

Hazara have East Asian mtDNA Lineages at 37.5% and Pashtuns have East Asian Lineages at 14.3% similar to their African mtDNA percentage.
Afghan Tajik have East Asian mtDNA at 10.5%, and Afghan Baloch have 13.4%.

Hazara have some African yDNA B-M60 at 5% from Haber Study.
We also note the presence of the African B-M60 only in Hazara, with a relatively recent common founder ancestor from East Africa as shown in theRMnetwork (Figure S1D).

So was the African mtDNA introduced through intermixing with African slaves or was it through intermixing with Afghani people African mtDNA ? If it was from 7th century that means roughly 600 years before the Mongol invasion meaning the most likely wouldn't have look like modern day Africans.
What about the South Asian and West Eurasian mtDNA in Hazara, were they from Iranians or Indians or all from Afghans?

Hazara mtDNA

" Women of Non-eastern Eurasian mtDNA in Hazaras are at 65% most which are West Eurasians and some South Asian.[48] "
Did the western eurasian mtDNA and Y-DNA in Hazara originated from Afghans or Iranians because it say this aswell ?

As for the 10-14% east Asian mtDNA in Afghans, Pasthuns, Baloch. Did they originate from intermixing with Mongols, or from Hazara or other Turkic ?

I mean I'm surprised that Afghans Pasthuns have only 2.13% haplogroup C but a total of 16% haplogroup Q and 3% O. I mean it's about the same for Tajiks and Balochi. Does this mean Pasthun, Tajiks, Balochi are partially Mongol-Turkic themselves?

It's hard even know if the east Eurasian mtDNA originated from Mongols or from Turkic but look haplogroup Q
Turkmens Iran have 42.6% Q and Turkmen of Afghan have 53.8% haplogroup Q

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/WorldHaplogroupsMaps/TurkmenY_DNA_Iran.gif

Miekka

08-04-2017, 04:58 AM

Small amount of African DNA is good , it protects from malaria .
Most Africans are prettier than MENA people , so no problem

https://i.hizliresim.com/r2D86V.jpg

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd.

Köstebek

08-04-2017, 05:11 AM

Turkey has 10% B Ydna from Hazara. Proven fact

Cristiano viejo

08-04-2017, 02:56 PM

These are all alpha people unlike 98% of the rubbish crap that Spanish or Portuguese conquered who have no history of such.

As for South Asia, it's not the most alpha but it's definitely not weak especially when compared with Iberians who only ruled tiny insifnificant parts of South India and were eventually kicked out later all enslaved.

loool most of these empires were as weak as the Incan and Aztecas ones, if not more. No comment that most are them are fully unknown (such empires!!...).

And yes, Spaniards defeated Arab empire (in the own Spain, it was called RECONQUISTA :whistle:) and Ottomans (do you even know who were the Almogavars, analphabet?).

Napoleon was defeated in Spain, are you highly ignorant or what?

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 12:38 AM

Turkey has 10% B Ydna from Hazara. Proven fact

Nah, it's only study with 5.1% B other studies show 0% B.

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 12:52 AM

loool most of these empires were as weak as the Incan and Aztecas ones, if not more. No comment that most are them are fully unknown (such empires!!...).

And yes, Spaniards defeated Arab empire (in the own Spain, it was called RECONQUISTA :whistle:) and Ottomans (do you even know who were the Almogavars, analphabet?).

Napoleon was defeated in Spain, are you highly ignorant or what?

All these empires were well known in their times. You never conquered any these alpha groups so how alpha are the Iberians ?
You only claim to be alpha against those who aren't as alpha.

Just admit that your empire was nothing impressive and your conquered population were mostly weaklings like 98% of them.

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 01:03 AM

Fractal

08-05-2017, 01:09 AM

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 01:12 AM

All these empires were well known in their times. You never conquered any these alpha groups so how alpha are the Iberians ?
You only claim to be alpha against those who aren't as alpha.

Just admit that your empire was nothing impressive and your conquered population were mostly weaklings like 98% of them.

The Aztecs and Incas weren't weaklings. The capital of the Aztecs had a population larger than any city in the world when the Spaniards arrived. The collapse of the Aztec and Inca empire was a result of alliances with Amerindians under the heel of the Aztecs and Incas and European diseases decimating the population. There is way they would have conquered both empires without what I mentioned. You're simply a fool who likes to play whose dick is bigger except... um... you're an Indian who pretending to be an Irishman living in England. Just as Fractal pretended to be an American of Dutch/German ancestry. You felt no one would give credibility unless they thought you were White.

A bit difficult claiming ethnic/racial pride if you pretend to be another ethnic group to give your praise of Indians validity and yeah the Portuguese dominated Indians whenever they got out of line and so it's humorous seeing you talk about alpha Indians. There were Amerindian groups that took decades and even two centuries to conquer and yet you see Indians bowing to Portuguese sailors far from home within a year.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 01:15 AM

The Aztecs and Incas weren't weaklings. The capital of the Aztecs had a population larger than any city in the world when the Spaniards arrived. The collapse of the Aztec and Inca empire was a result of alliances with Amerindians under the heel of the Aztecs and Incas and European diseases decimating the population. There is way they would have conquered both empires without what I mentioned. You're simply a fool who likes to play whose dick is bigger except... um... you're an Indian who pretending to be an Irishman living in England. Just as Fractal pretended to be an American of Dutch/German ancestry. You felt no one would give credibility unless they thought you were White.

A bit difficult claiming ethnic/racial pride if you pretend to be another ethnic group to give your praise of Indians validity and yeah the Portuguese dominated Indians whenever they got out of line and so it's humorous seeing you talk about alpha Indians.

um sorry but no the Aztecs were primitive savages and very disorganized in comparison to old world civilizations. They wouldn't have been that easy to conquer if you have superior technology

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 01:26 AM

um sorry but no the Aztecs were primitive savages and very disorganized in comparison to old world civilizations. They wouldn't have been that easy to conquer if you have superior technology

If they're savages, then so are your countrymen. You have people in India who eat corpses, for fuck's sake, and bathe in water with dead bodies and turds floating by. We're speaking of 2017. We're speaking of some long ago time.

No, they weren't disorganized compared to old world civilizations. You also don't understand how 16th century warfare works. What allowed for victory was superior tactics employed from the Old World (which involved thousands of Amerindian allies). There wasn't an army of thousands of Spaniards with swords, arquebus, and armor. There were only 400 to 500 men (and one woman). This included the sailors. A bow and arrow is actually more effective against unarmored men than an arquebus. You can get a few shots off with a bow before an arquebus could be fired by even the most skilled. So it had no advantage. A cannon would have an advantage and they didn't have many of those. They had to build catapults.

At this point I would think you were smart enough not to question me on anything. You're the one who says stupid shit that you have trouble discussing in any detail. I'm the one who goes into details that can be easily checked.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 01:33 AM

If they're savages, then so are your countrymen. You have people in India who eat corpses, for fuck's sake, and bathe in water with dead bodies and turds floating by. We're speaking of 2017. We're speaking of some long ago time.

No, they weren't disorganized compared to old world civilizations. You also don't understand how 16th century warfare works. What allowed for victory was superior tactics employed from the Old World (which involved thousands of Amerindian allies). There wasn't an army of thousands of Spaniards with swords, arquebus, and armor. There were only 400 to 500 men (and one woman). This included the sailors. A bow and arrow is actually more effective against unarmored men than an arquebus. You can get a few shots off with a bow before an arquebus could be fired by even the most skilled. So it had no advantage. A cannon would have an advantage and they didn't have many of those. They had to build catapults.

At this point I would think you were smart enough not to question me on anything. You're the one who says stupid shit that you have trouble discussing in any detail. I'm the one who goes into details that can be easily checked.

Umm sorry but they were literally savages in the truest sense of the word. Indians are not known to be cannibals and sorry but no one eats corpses in India. Majority of the population is vegetarian and sure you might have some people doing that but it's not the norm.

You are butthurt because most scholars would agree Ancient India was one of the most advanced civilizations to ever exist and even the Greeks acknowledged it.

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 04:09 AM

The Aztecs and Incas weren't weaklings. The capital of the Aztecs had a population larger than any city in the world when the Spaniards arrived. The collapse of the Aztec and Inca empire was a result of alliances with Amerindians under the heel of the Aztecs and Incas and European diseases decimating the population. There is way they would have conquered both empires without what I mentioned. You're simply a fool who likes to play whose dick is bigger except... um... you're an Indian who pretending to be an Irishman living in England. Just as Fractal pretended to be an American of Dutch/German ancestry. You felt no one would give credibility unless they thought you were White.

A bit difficult claiming ethnic/racial pride if you pretend to be another ethnic group to give your praise of Indians validity and yeah the Portuguese dominated Indians whenever they got out of line and so it's humorous seeing you talk about alpha Indians. There were Amerindian groups that took decades and even two centuries to conquer and yet you see Indians bowing to Portuguese sailors far from home within a year.

Portuguese never dominated Indians, they only have tiny dots of colonies for trade.

Firstable the only reason you think I'm Indian is because I'm defending Indian by your logic any White person who talks greatly about Indians must have Indian ancestry ? Don't be ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvVHdF7Ekc

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 04:18 AM

Umm sorry but they were literally savages in the truest sense of the word. Indians are not known to be cannibals and sorry but no one eats corpses in India. Majority of the population is vegetarian and sure you might have some people doing that but it's not the norm.

You are butthurt because most scholars would agree Ancient India was one of the most advanced civilizations to ever exist and even the Greeks acknowledged it.

No they were not savages but were very cruel and brutal. I mean they had lot of knowledge and architecture, technology achievements. They were a advance people but were very brutal.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 04:32 AM

No they were not savages but were very cruel and brutal. I mean they had lot of knowledge and architecture, technology achievements. They were a advance people but were very brutal.

Which explains why Latin America is such a violent place with the highest homicide rates in the world and filled with narco drug cartels (combined with the Spanish Med input)

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 04:33 AM

Portuguese never dominated Indians, they only have tiny dots of colonies for trade.

Um, what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu

600 Portuguese defeated 16, 000 Gujarati. At least the Aztec and Inca warriors were dying from European diseases. You don't have the same excuse.

The Portuguese dominated the Indian Ocean in the 16th century. Indian Muslims with Ottoman allies couldn't hang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvVHdF7Ekc

Oh, a White person in the video. Brings back memories of you trying to validate Indians in the yes of others by pretending to be an Irishmen in the UK? Two Indians have done this. No one from any other ethnic group on this forum has never sunk that low.

Don't speak to me about Indian and their 'prosperity.' They have already gained a reputation for incompetence. The real future economic powerhouse is in China. They have the average IQ mean to be a bigger player than they already are.

Firstable the only reason you think I'm Indian is because I'm defending Indian by your logic any White person who talks greatly about Indians must have Indian ancestry ? Don't be ridiculous.

You always talk about India. You never say a word about Ireland or England. You rarely talk about anything except India unless you're trolling a group. You're like the guy I call when I have a problem with my credit card. Your name is 'Steve' but your accent isn't that of a Steve. Why do they make Indians in call centers use American names? It's stupid. Just as it's stupid - and embarrassing - to pretend you're an ethnicity that you are not to give what you say about Indian's credibility, Steve... or Chad... or whatever fake name you have...

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 04:42 AM

Which explains why Latin America is such a violent place with the highest homicide rates in the world and filled with narco drug cartels (combined with the Spanish Med input)

I would prefer to live among killers than rapists. Watch where you put your hands, you rapey lil' monkey.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 04:45 AM

I would prefer to live among killers than rapists. Watch where you put your hands, you rapey lil' monkey.

I'd prefer to live around rapists since I'm a male and most rapists don't rape other males.

Friends of Oliver Society

08-05-2017, 04:47 AM

I'd prefer to live around rapists since I'm a male and most rapists don't rape other males.

Actually, a man is more likely to be raped than a woman. I'm a wealth of information.

btw, White American women are learning BJJ, Muay Thai, etc. at records numbers. There will be no raping by you. Not today... not tomorrow.... not ever.

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 04:50 AM

Um, what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu

600 Portuguese defeated 16, 000 Gujarati. At least the Aztec and Inca warriors were dying from European diseases. You don't have the same excuse.

The Portuguese dominated the Indian Ocean in the 16th century. Indian Muslims with Ottoman allies couldn't hang.

Pre-16th century Iberians ( Portuguese and Spain ) couldn't conquer crap.

They were only able to start their conquest on the world when they had superior firearms that gave them unfair advantages over other races but once Indians had the same weapons they were no match.

The Indian made slaves out of Portuguese people.

Portuguese surrender

" 18 December, most of Goa had been overrun by advancing Indian forces, and a large party of more than two thousand Portuguese soldiers had taken position at the military base at Alparqueiros at the entrance to the port town of Vasco da Gama"

Take your time and read more. Portuguese eventually became Indian slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa#Portuguese_surrender

Internment and repatriation of POWs

" After they surrendered, the Portuguese soldiers were interned by the Indian Army at their own military camps [30] "

" Portuguese non-combatants present in Goa at the surrender—which included Mrs Vasalo D'Silva, wife of the Portuguese Governor General of Goa—were transported by 29 December to Bombay, from where they were repatriated to Portugal. Manuel Vassalo, however, remained along with approximately 3,300 Portuguese combatants as POWs in Goa.

Air Marshal S. Raghavendran, who met some of the captured Portuguese soldiers, wrote in his memoirs several years later "I have never seen such a set of troops looking so miserable in my life. Short, not particularly well built and certainly very unsoldierlike."[66]

Oh, a White person in the video. Brings back memories of you trying to validate Indians in the yes of others by pretending to be an Irishmen in the UK? Two Indians have done this. No one from any other ethnic group on this forum has never sunk that low.

Don't speak to me about Indian and their 'prosperity.' They have already gained a reputation for incompetence. The real future economic powerhouse is in China. They have the average IQ mean to be a bigger player than they already are.

Obviously she's not a Indian person pretending to be white. She is a intelligent women speaking facts that you can't deal with.

You always talk about India. You never say a word about Ireland or England. You never talk about anything except India. You're like the guy I call when I have a problem with my credit card. Your name is 'Steve' but your accent isn't that of a Steve. Why do they make Indians in call centers use American names? It's stupid. Just as it's stupid - and embarrassing - to pretend you're an ethnicity that you are not to give what you say about Indians credibility, Steve... or Chad... or whatever fake name you have...

And what's wrong with talking a lot about India ? I also talked a lot about Turks.

I understand the jealousy to Indians Americans being more successful than white Americans.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 04:50 AM

Actually, a man is more likely to be raped than a woman. I'm a wealth of information.

btw, White American women are learning BJJ, Muay Thai, etc. at records numbers. There will be no raping by you. Not today... not tomorrow.... not ever.

Who says Indians need to rape to get white pussy?

And lets check the rape convict statistics in the USA. How many Galician/Spanish/portuguese surnames found in the FBI database vs. Patels/Guptas/Kumars/Shahs? Hmmm

stop being jealous of a superior ethnicity to you

Cristiano viejo

08-05-2017, 09:13 AM

Damião de Góis

08-05-2017, 01:01 PM

Portuguese never dominated Indians, they only have tiny dots of colonies for trade.

You be the judge of that:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Map_of_Portuguese_India.png/1024px-Map_of_Portuguese_India.png

Pre-16th century Iberians ( Portuguese and Spain ) couldn't conquer crap.

They were only able to start their conquest on the world when they had superior firearms that gave them unfair advantages over other races but once Indians had the same weapons they were no match.

Portuguese expansion actually started in 1415 with the conquest of Ceuta. From there until reaching and India in 1498 Brazil in 1500 there was a long way.
Portuguese empire at the end of the 15th century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Portugal-1500.png?1501937649731

The Indian made slaves out of Portuguese people.

Portuguese surrender

" 18 December, most of Goa had been overrun by advancing Indian forces, and a large party of more than two thousand Portuguese soldiers had taken position at the military base at Alparqueiros at the entrance to the port town of Vasco da Gama"

Take your time and read more. Portuguese eventually became Indian slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa#Portuguese_surrender

Internment and repatriation of POWs

" After they surrendered, the Portuguese soldiers were interned by the Indian Army at their own military camps [30] "

" Portuguese non-combatants present in Goa at the surrender—which included Mrs Vasalo D'Silva, wife of the Portuguese Governor General of Goa—were transported by 29 December to Bombay, from where they were repatriated to Portugal. Manuel Vassalo, however, remained along with approximately 3,300 Portuguese combatants as POWs in Goa.

Air Marshal S. Raghavendran, who met some of the captured Portuguese soldiers, wrote in his memoirs several years later "I have never seen such a set of troops looking so miserable in my life. Short, not particularly well built and certainly very unsoldierlike."[66]

That was in the 60s (Goa was portuguese from 1509 until 1961) so i doubt there was much slavery going on after the defeat.

meisje

08-05-2017, 01:11 PM

Do Iberians still see as success to invade unarmed-uncivilized-empty Lands, Ottomans were dominating Mediterranean Sea where Iberians make under their panth

Cristiano viejo

08-05-2017, 01:15 PM

Do Iberians still see as success to invade unarmed-uncivilized-empty Lands, Ottomans were dominating Mediterranean Sea where Iberians make under their panth

100 Spaniards vs 100.000 Indians is still more impressive than 100.000 Turks vs 10.000 Balkanites IMO

Damião de Góis

08-05-2017, 01:19 PM

Do Iberians still see as success to invade unarmed-uncivilized-empty Lands, Ottomans were dominating Mediterranean Sea where Iberians make under their panth

I wouldn't say Moroccans, Indians or Persians were unarmed and uncivilized. But if it was so easy why didn't turks do the same? Wait, they tried and failed in the indian ocean.

Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas

08-05-2017, 01:52 PM

Pre-16th century Iberians ( Portuguese and Spain ) couldn't conquer crap.

They were only able to start their conquest on the world when they had superior firearms that gave them unfair advantages over other races but once Indians had the same weapons they were no match.

The Indian made slaves out of Portuguese people..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3RLqm2BLo

Cristiano viejo

08-05-2017, 02:13 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3RLqm2BLo

Not even 2000 Portuguese vs 40.000 Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

lulz, these weak and undeveloped Indians...

meisje

08-05-2017, 02:17 PM

I wouldn't say Moroccans, Indians or Persians were unarmed and uncivilized. But if it was so easy why didn't turks do the same? Wait, they tried and failed in the indian ocean.

Ottoman navy does not fit for oceans, You did right thing,Instead fighting with large land armies of HRE,You are gone to other continents and built port cities, Ottomans should have done same thing

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 10:40 PM

Comparind Aztecas, Mayas and Icas with these unknown "empires" is hilarious.
Also 1000 Spaniards, who even did not form an army, defeated millions of Aztecs, Mayas and Incas, that is imppresive.

I insist, Spaniards defeated too Arabs and Ottomans.
It is Indians who were and are quite Betas. Thanks British who civilized you a bit.

Anyone with such a technological advantage can defeat 10 of millions. That is not impressive because we know Spanish couldn't defeat any major empire pre-16th century without the firearm they had today.

Arabs conquered Spain but Spain couldn't conquer Arabs. Ottoman made massive slaves out of million of Spanish people.

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 10:45 PM

100 Spaniards vs 100.000 Indians is still more impressive than 100.000 Turks vs 10.000 Balkanites IMO

They are different levels. We all one a person with a gun is the equivalent of a thousand soldiers with a knife especially you fire from such a long distance.

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 10:46 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3RLqm2BLo

2000+ Portuguese with firearms

ButlerKing

08-05-2017, 10:48 PM

Not even 2000 Portuguese vs 40.000 Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Goa

lulz, these weak and undeveloped Indians...

2000+ Portuguese with firearms vs 40,000 Indians without it.

Portuguese are weaklings without as proven from pre-16th century history of Iberians who never establish a empire outside of it's borders.

Fractal

08-05-2017, 10:50 PM

2000+ Portuguese with firearms vs 40,000 Indians without it.

Portuguese are weaklings without as proven from pre-16th century history of Iberians who never establish a empire outside of it's borders.

And they were conquered by the Arabs, as you say.

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 01:05 AM

Anyone with such a technological advantage can defeat 10 of millions. That is not impressive because we know Spanish couldn't defeat any major empire pre-16th century without the firearm they had today.

Arabs conquered Spain but Spain couldn't conquer Arabs. Ottoman made massive slaves out of million of Spanish people.
Do you know what the R E C O N Q U I S T A was per chance??

And Spaniards defeated Ottomans in the century XIV in the own Anatolia (the Spanish Almovagars did it, and forcefully), and later in the Mediterranean (Lepanto, Malta, etc) and in continental Europe, supporting Hungarians in Transilvania or Austrians in Vienna.

I insist, you conveniently ignore that Spain conquered and ruled Italy, Netherlands or Belgium, and parts of Northern France for centuries :thumb001:

They are different levels. We all one a person with a gun is the equivalent of a thousand soldiers with a knife especially you fire from such a long distance.

You are very ignorant, Burger King. Spaniards defeated all these Aztecs etc with the brain, not with the gun. Spaniards made that the Aztec enemies were their allies, etc etc, what finally was decisive.

ButlerKing

08-06-2017, 02:07 AM

Do you know what the R E C O N Q U I S T A was per chance??

And Spaniards defeated Ottomans in the century XIV in the own Anatolia (the Spanish Almovagars did it, and forcefully), and later in the Mediterranean (Lepanto, Malta, etc) and in continental Europe, supporting Hungarians in Transilvania or Austrians in Vienna.

I insist, you conveniently ignore that Spain conquered and ruled Italy, Netherlands or Belgium, and parts of Northern France for centuries :thumb001:

You are very ignorant, Burger King. Spaniards defeated all these Aztecs etc with the brain, not with the gun. Spaniards made that the Aztec enemies were their allies, etc etc, what finally was decisive.

So why didn't you try to conquer Arabia and Anatolia ? The R E C O N Q U I S T A happened after 700 years of Moorish/Arab rule

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 02:10 AM

So why didn't you try to conquer Arabia and Anatolia ?
By the same reason we did not try to conquer North Africa: arid lands, poverty and nothing to take advantage.

The R E C O N Q U I S T A happened after 700 years of Arabs/Moorish rule.
Maybe you think Asturias, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragón were ruled by Moors 700 years :lol:

Fractal

08-06-2017, 02:41 AM

By the same reason we did not try to conquer North Africa: arid lands, poverty and nothing to take advantage.

Maybe you think Asturias, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragón were ruled by Moors 700 years :lol:

Lets be realistic all those Ricardo Silvas would not have conquered India if the Hindus had an equal amount of firepower to give in return. Also we had superior tactics and were far more organized, and India during those times was one of the richest places in the world.

ButlerKing

08-06-2017, 02:41 AM

By the same reason we did not try to conquer North Africa: arid lands, poverty and nothing to take advantage.

Maybe you think Asturias, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragón were ruled by Moors 700 years :lol:

So how do you prove you're alpha ? you didn't fight the strongest people.

Asturias, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragón are all Spanish sub-groups. Moors/Arabs ruled spain for nearly a millennia but how many years did you ruled the Moorish/Arab ?

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 02:49 AM

Lets be realistic all those Ricardo Silvas would not have conquered India if the Hindus had an equal amount of firepower to give in return. Also we had superior tactics and were far more organized, and India during those times was one of the richest places in the world.
But they did, live with it.

So how do you prove you're alpha ? you didn't fight the strongest people.
How many times do you need to read that Spaniards defeated English, Dutch, French, Germans, Italians, Portuguese or Ottomans plus Amerindians (who in no way were weaker than Indians or these people of Asia)?

Asturias, Castilla, Catalonia or Aragón are all Spanish sub-groups. Moors/Arabs ruled spain for nearly a millennia
Only Granada, in the South not of Spain but of Andalusia! was ruled 700 years.
Explain me how during these 700 years Castilla attacked England or Aragón conquered Italy, or how Almogavars destroyed Ottomans in Anatolia... if all them were being ruled by Moors according you :picard1:

You know nothing about history.

but how many years did you ruled the Moorish/Arab ?
Ask that in Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands :thumb001:

ButlerKing

08-06-2017, 03:11 AM

But they did, live with it.

How many times do you need to read that Spaniards defeated English, Dutch, French, Germans, Italians, Portuguese or Ottomans plus Amerindians (who in no way were weaker than Indians or these people of Asia)?

Only Granada, in the South not of Spain but of Andalusia! was ruled 700 years.
Explain me how during these 700 years Castilla attacked England or Aragón conquered Italy, or how Almogavars destroyed Ottomans in Anatolia... if all them were being ruled by Moors according you :picard1:

You know nothing about history.

Ask that in Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands :thumb001:

You lost this war to the ottomans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

You lost to the British in this war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1762%E2%80%931763)

You lose to Cambodians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Spanish_War

You lose to French

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Spanish_War_(1635%E2%80%9359)

You lose to french again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Reunions

You lose to American, Filipino, Cuban

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

You lose to Mexicans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_attempts_to_reconquer_Mexico

You lose in the Peruvian war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_War_of_Independence

And many other wars of defeat that I didn't bother to name.

JMack

08-06-2017, 03:23 AM

You lost this war to the ottomans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

You lost to the British in this war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1762%E2%80%931763)

You lose to Cambodians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Spanish_War

You lose to French

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Spanish_War_(1635%E2%80%9359)

You lose to french again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Reunions

You lose to American, Filipino, Cuban

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

You lose to Mexicans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_attempts_to_reconquer_Mexico

You lose in the Peruvian war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_War_of_Independence

And many other wars of defeat that I didn't bother to name.

Sorry to interrupt your dreams of grandeur, but some of these wars, like Latin American independence wars cannot be counted as Spanish defeat (in the ethnic sense) since the generals and commanders of the Latin American countries were mostly of full or partial Spanish descent.

It was more a kind of civil war between ethnic Spaniards from Spain and the Criollo elite (people of full or mostly Spaniard ancestry born in Spanish America). It doesn't count as a defeat at the hands of the other people since they were ethnically related from the beggining.

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 03:28 AM

You lost this war to the ottomans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Venetian_War_(1537%E2%80%931540)

We are not Venetians, stupid.

You lost to the British in this war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1762%E2%80%931763)
And English/British lost against Spaniards in these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1585%E2%80%931604)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1625%E2%80%931630)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_and_the_American_Revolutionary_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear

You lose to Cambodians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Spanish_War
For every lost war I have five won wars by Spain.

You lose to French

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Spanish_War_(1635%E2%80%9359)

You lose to french again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Reunions
If there is a country which was defeated by Spain that was France :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1499%E2%80%931504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1521%E2%80%9326
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1551%E2%80%9359
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Portuguese_Succession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion#War_with_Spain_.281595.E2. 80.9398.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Genoa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days

You lose to American, Filipino, Cuban

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
Yes, Spain lost against USA, basically when the Spanish empire is literally ending...

You lose to Mexicans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_attempts_to_reconquer_Mexico

You lose in the Peruvian war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_War_of_Independence

If you were something smart and cultivated and not an analphabet, you would know these "Mexicans" and "Peruvians" were criollos aka Spaniards born in America :picard1:

And many other wars of defeat that I didn't bother to name.
All countries lose wars. Name me a country that does not.

Babak

08-06-2017, 03:57 AM

Fractal

08-06-2017, 05:29 AM

Theres a reason why peruvians, mexicans, and cubans speak spanish bro lol. The spaniards fucked all of those people.

And there's a reason why Indians still speak Hindi, are not Muslims, still practice the Vedic culture, still make the most money in western countries like the USA and Canada, still marry within their ethnicity the most, etc...we were never truly owned by our colonizers like they were.

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 02:17 PM

And there's a reason why Indians still speak Hindi, are not Muslims, still practice the Vedic culture, still make the most money in western countries like the USA and Canada, still marry within their ethnicity the most, etc...we were never truly owned by our colonizers like they were.

lol, having to emmigrate to other countries is the most BETA thing one could do... and do you talk about not being owned??

MinervaItalica

08-06-2017, 02:41 PM

I insist, you conveniently ignore that Spain conquered and ruled Italy, Netherlands or Belgium, and parts of Northern France for centuries :thumb001:

Pardon me Rodrigo but you need to specify, not all Italy was conquered by Spain... Milan was inherited at the death of Francesco II Sforza. Only Sardinia and Naples were actually "military conquered" the latter during the Italian Wars however not after losing some battles earlier like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ponza_(1435)

Sicily came under the Aragonese after the Sicilian Vespers were the Sicilians supported the Aragoneses, not really conquered...

Cristiano viejo

08-06-2017, 03:04 PM

Pardon me Rodrigo but you need to specify, not all Italy was conquered by Spain... Milan was inherited at the death of Francesco II Sforza. Only Sardinia and Naples were actually "military conquered" the latter during the Italian Wars however not after losing some battles earlier like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ponza_(1435)

Sicily came under the Aragonese after the Sicilian Vespers were the Sicilians supported the Aragoneses, not really conquered...

You are lying! Duchy of Milan (which encompassed almost entire Lombardy) was conquered military too.
Spanish defeated French-Italians in any Italian corner, Roma included.

MinervaItalica

08-06-2017, 03:08 PM

You are lying! Duchy of Milan (which encompassed almost entire Lombardy) was conquered military too.
Spanish defeated French-Italians in any Italian corner, Roma included.

Nope, not at all, Milan was restored to the Sforza, it was inherited by Charles V after the death without heirs of the last ruler Francesco II.

Rome included?! You mean the German mercenaries :rolleyes: if you're referring to the Sack of Rome.... Spaniards did nothing...

However losses were higher on Spanish/HRE side. The commander was also Italian (Ferrante Gonzaga)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)

Cristiano viejo

08-07-2017, 04:12 PM

Nope, not at all, Milan was restored to the Sforza, it was inherited by Charles V after the death without heirs of the last ruler Francesco II.
But what are you talking?? does the Italian Wars sound to you per chance? :picard1:

Rome included?! You mean the German mercenaries :rolleyes: if you're referring to the Sack of Rome.... Spaniards did nothing...
Nothing?? :lol:

More than 5000 Spanish soldiers under the orders of Alfonso de Ávalos... and they did nothing... :lol:

Well, read...

Concise and exact was the description given by the Prior of the Canons of St. Augustine at that time: "Mali fuere Germani, pejores Itali, Hispani vero pessimi." (The Germans were bad, the Italians were worse, the Spaniards were the worst.) Besides the irreplaceable damage of the destruction of the relics, during the Sack of Rome, inestimable art treasures, namely the greater part of the Church's finest artisan-made gold and silver ware, were lost forever.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/swiss_guard/swissguard/storia_en.htm

And look who killed the Commander of the Swiss Guard along his soldiers...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_of_the_Swiss_Guard

Another thing that the Spaniards did during the Sack of Rome was avoiding that the Spanish churches were sacked (the ones that were respected):

Tras la ejecución de unos mil defensores comenzó el pillaje. Se destruyeron y despojaron de todo objeto precioso iglesias y monasterios (excepto las iglesias nacionales españolas), además de palacios de prelados y cardenales. Incluso los cardenales proimperiales tuvieron que pagar para proteger sus riquezas de los victoriosos soldados.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saco_de_Roma

However losses were higher on Spanish/HRE side. The commander was also Italian (Ferrante Gonzaga)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527)
Yes... but by diseases, not military :picard1:

The population of Rome dropped from some 55,000 before the attack to 10,000. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people were murdered. Many Imperial soldiers also died in the following months (they remained in the city until February 1528) from diseases caused by the large number of unburied dead bodies in the city. The pillage only ended when, after eight months, the food ran out, there was no one left to ransom and plague appeared

The commander was another Italian vassal of Spain... like many others.

MinervaItalica

08-07-2017, 05:02 PM

More than 5000 Spanish soldiers under the orders of Alfonso de Ávalos... and they did nothing... :lol:

Nope sorry, history remembers only the Landsknecht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht) which were around 14000 if you look the source i've provided about the Sack.

In any case Spain needed the help of the HRE in the Italian Wars in order to win. Pretty obvious that the Italian states have had difficulties... (apart from Venice)

Yes... but by diseases, not military :picard1:

Also military. Taking Castel Sant'Angelo wasn't easy...

But yes now that you remind me Spaniards brought Plague in Italy like Manzoni wrote in his work "The Betrothed"

The commander was another Italian vassal of Spain... like many others.

Like many others who made Spain great during its golden age :thumb001:

Cristiano viejo

08-07-2017, 08:24 PM

Nope sorry, history remembers only the Landsknecht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht) which were around 14000 if you look the source i've provided about the Sack.
But what do you say?? history only remembers the Spanish Tercios.
And ah!, while you post wikipedia I post the own web of the Vatican http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/swiss_guard/swissguard/storia_en.htm
where it can be read the role of the Spanish soldiers in the sack of Roma.

In any case Spain needed the help of the HRE in the Italian Wars in order to win. Pretty obvious that the Italian states have had difficulties... (apart from Venice)
Every army has its foreigner mercenaries, Roma was expert in that.

In any case Italians, unlike Flemish and Germans, were the worst soldiers within the Spanish armies, this is very well documented and even the Duke of Alba asked the King Felipe II to not hiring more Italians for the army.

Also military. Taking Castel Sant'Angelo wasn't easy...
I thought Spanish did nothing... :rolleyes:

But yes now that you remind me Spaniards brought Plague in Italy like Manzoni wrote in his work "The Betrothed"
But if the plague was brought to Europe via Italy, ragazzo... :lol:

Like many others who made Spain great during its golden age :thumb001:

Same than many Hispanos made Roma great during its golden age (Trajan, Hadrian, Seneca...) :thumb001:

MinervaItalica

08-07-2017, 08:42 PM

Every army has its foreigner mercenaries, Roma was expert in that.

Agree with first part. Rome had its Army and the Swiss Mercenaries.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esercito_dello_Stato_della_Chiesa

In any case Italians, unlike Flemish and Germans, were the worst soldiers within the Spanish armies, this is very well documented and even the Duke of Alba asked the King Felipe II to not hiring more Italians for the army.

I thought Spanish did nothing... :rolleyes:

Source about "worst soldiers" and about "not hiring Italians"? Some of the best commanders of your nation history were from Italy.

We also saved you from Saracens...

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battaglie_di_Almeria_e_Tortosa

Btw i remember a quote from Eugene of Savoy talking about Spanish soldiers :lol:

When Eugene's Imperial troops finally arrived in Piedmont little could be achieved due to Spanish hesitancy and reluctance: in Eugene's words: " … they want to do absolutely nothing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Staffarda

But if the plague was brought to Europe via Italy, ragazzo... :lol:

I'm not talking about the medieval one (Black Death) which was brought by merchant ships returning from the Crusades. I'm talking about the diseases brought by Spaniards, French, Wallonians and Germans to Italy during the Italian Wars.

Same than many Hispanos made Roma great during its golden age (Trajan, Hadrian, Seneca...) :thumb001:

Hispanos? :confused: I doubt they considered themself as such... they were romans born in a colony of Rome (Hispania) from families of Roman origins.

And one of the most important colonies of Rome in Hispania was Italica.

Cristiano viejo

08-07-2017, 09:39 PM

Agree with first part. Rome had its Army and the Swiss Mercenaries.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esercito_dello_Stato_della_Chiesa

I am talking about Roman empire and its mercenaries from every corner of its territories. Among them the Iberians.

Source about "worst soldiers" and about "not hiring Italians"?

Some of the best commanders of your nation history were from Italy.
Partially Spanish, like Alejandro Farnesio.

Commanders yes but the soldiers were quite bad.

The source is the book Tercios de España, of Fernando Martínez Laínez.

We also saved you from Saracens...
That is just a battle. Spaniards saved all Italy from Turks during centuries.

Btw i remember a quote from Eugene of Savoy talking about Spanish soldiers :lol:
That does not talk bad about the military competence of the Spanish soldiers, let be serious, for God sake... :picard1:

Your anti-Hispanism blinds you. Spanish Tercios have been among the most mythical armies ever, they innovated the art of war and were invincible for more than a century

Why dont you read this and comment, caro ragazzo?

A Tercio was a Spanish infantry organization during the time that Habsburg Spain dominated Europe in the Early Modern era.

The care that was taken to maintain a high number of "old soldiers" (veterans) in the units, and their professional training, together with the particular personality imprinted on them by the proud hidalgos of the lower nobility that nurtured them, made the tercios for a century and a half the best infantry in Europe.

Moreover, the tercios were the first to efficiently mix pikes and firearms. Tercio companies dominated European battlefields in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century and are seen by historians as a major development of Early Modern combined arms warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

The Spanish soldiers within the Spanish Tercios reached just 1/3 of the total, but they were the elite. They always were at the head of the army, and even once that attacking Berbers in Africa it were an Italian soldiers who attacked first, there was such commotion for this that even the captain of the Tercio had to give explanations to the Spanish king :lightbul:

I'm not talking about the medieval one (Black Death) which was brought by merchant ships returning from the Crusades. I'm talking about the diseases brought by Spaniards, French, Wallonians and Germans to Italy during the Italian Wars.
What diseases? the own of a war? :rolleyes:

Hispanos? :confused: I doubt they considered themself as such... they were romans born in a colony of Rome (Hispania) from families of Roman origins.

And one of the most important colonies of Rome in Hispania was Italica.
No, not true, they were from families of Hispanian origins, in the worst of cases only partially.
Trajan for example was purelly Hispanian

Marco Ulpio Trajano fue el primer emperador de origen provincial y, según Dión Casio y Herodiano, era un alloethnés y un externus: un hombre de otra raza y un extranjero. Trajano nació el 18 de septiembre del año 53 -aunque la fecha podría no ser exacta- en una antigua ciudad romana situada en la Bética, la provincia romana que comprendía la mayor parte del territorio de la actual Andalucía.

La familia de Trajano era de ascendencia indígena, parece ser que era natural de la región de Turdetania, posteriormente denominada Bética, cuando fue conquistada por Roma. Se cree que el linaje turdetano de los Trahii, o Traii, se integró en Itálica poco después de la fundación de la ciudad por los romanos en 205 a.C.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/actualidad/trajano-nacio-en-italica-hace-1960-anos_7619

MinervaItalica

08-07-2017, 10:00 PM

Partially Spanish, like Alejandro Farnesio.

Commanders yes but the soldiers were quite bad.

The source is the book Tercios de España, of Fernando Martínez Laínez.

Ambrogio Spinola and Ambrosio Boccanegra were fully Italian.

So... now i've to read a Spanish source that probably has not a neutral point of view??? :dunno:

That is just a battle. Spaniards saved all Italy from Turks during centuries.

Nope not only one battle but a campaign with a series of battles.

Hahaha best shit of the day. I bet you've no proves...
The only ones who protected Italy from the Turks were the Venetians, losing territories but managing to keep them outside of the mainland for centuries.

No, not true, they were from families of Hispanian origins, in the worst of cases only partially.
Trajan for example was purelly Hispanian

Hahaha.

"Born in the city of Italica in the province of Hispania Baetica, Trajan's non-patrician family was of Italian and perhaps Iberian origin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

"Traiano era figlio di un importante senatore che portava il suo stesso nome (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Ulpio_Traiano_(padre)). Apparteneva ad una famiglia di Todi[4], quella degli Ulpii, che, sebbene provinciale, era eminente e di rango senatorio. Gli Ulpii erano una famiglia italica stabilitasi nella provincia iberica di Baetica (odierna Andalusia - Spagna), la quale mantenne però sempre contatti con la terra d'origine al punto che Nicomaco Flaviano il Vecchio ipotizzava che l' imperatore fosse nato nella città umbra"

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traiano

In any case most of the best and well known Roman military leaders were from the Republic Era such as Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Julius Caesar, Sulla, Mark Anthony and tons of others.

Cristiano viejo

08-08-2017, 06:06 PM

Ambrogio Spinola and Ambrosio Boccanegra were fully Italian.

So... now i've to read a Spanish source that probably has not a neutral point of view??? :dunno:[/QUOTE]
No no... you are wrong as usual... it is not a Spanish source really... you should read more carefully what I post... it was a comment/suggestion that the Duke of Alba made to the Spanish king. And this is very well documented, you can find a lot of info about this comment about not wanting Italian soldiers due their bad quality.

The exact phrase was: "Italians, for God sake, His Majesty, dont bring more, that it will be lost money..."
http://www.curistoria.com/2013/10/los-italianos-y-el-duque-de-alba.html

This happened when Spain is preparing the invasion of Portugal.

Nope not only one battle but a campaign with a series of battles.

Hahaha best shit of the day. I bet you've no proves...
But you are that ignorant or what?? everybody knows Spain defended and protected Italy from Turks in the centuries XVI and XVII!!
Italy belonged to Spain, defending Italy was like defending the own Spain.

The only ones who protected Italy from the Turks were the Venetians, losing territories but managing to keep them outside of the mainland for centuries.
Ah, Venetians... these who cried asking help to Spain to fight against the Turks, you say? :picard1:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traiano

Again all what you have is Wikipedia, while I am posting another more reliable sources.

For start, Dión Casio and Herodiano. According them Trajan was an "alloethnes" and an "externus", ie a man from other race, and a foreigner.

For last, also recent studies as I posted endorse the fact.

In any case most of the best and well known Roman military leaders were from the Republic Era such as Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Julius Caesar, Sulla, Mark Anthony and tons of others.
Trajan and Hadrian are considered among the Five Good Emperors, Theodosius I was a Hispano too, Seneca, Martial...

MinervaItalica

08-08-2017, 06:19 PM

The exact phrase was: "Italians, for God sake, His Majesty, dont bring more, that it will be lost money..."
http://www.curistoria.com/2013/10/los-italianos-y-el-duque-de-alba.html

Spanish source...
I'm trying to find something more reliable in Italian and English but nothing...

But you are that ignorant or what?? everybody knows Spain defended and protected Italy from Turks in the centuries XVI and XVII!!

Everybody who? Post examples :rolleyes:
And don't come up here with the Otranto siege which was fought by Italians (Neapolitans) and Hungarians.

South Italy belonged to Spain, defending Italy was like defending the own Spain.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Fix'd. Again with your generalizations? :rolleyes:
And the southern realms were separate kingdoms in personal union. Milan was inherited by Charles V (then given to Philip II) at the death of the last Sforza without heirs.

Ah, Venetians... these who cried asking help to Spain to fight against the Turks, you say? :picard1:

Venetians have had a longer history of fights against the Ottomans, when your country was under moorish rule Venetians already engaged them.

Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin

08-08-2017, 06:20 PM

There is some evidence[citation needed]that Flavius Theodosius's father was called Flavius Julius Honorius, and his uncles Flavius Julius Gerontiusand Flavius Julius Eucherius. He himself was called Flavius Julius Theodosius, claimed descending from thegens Julia throughGaius Julius Caesar's cousin Sextus Julius Caesar[citation needed]. Probably sometime in the late 330s or early 340s he married Flavia Thermantia. By her, he had at least two sons, Honorius and Theodosius (afterwards Emperor Theodosius I), born at Cauca (modernCoca, Segovia) inSpain. The family were OrthodoxChristians.

Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin

08-08-2017, 06:24 PM

Marcus Annaeus Seneca, known as Seneca the Elder and Seneca the Rhetorician(/ˈsɛnɪkə/; 54 BC – c. 39 AD), was a Roman rhetorician and writer, born of a wealthyequestrianfamily of Cordoba, Hispania. Seneca lived through the reigns of three significant emperors; Augustus(ruled 27 BC – 14 AD),Tiberius(ruled 14 AD – 37 AD) and Caligula (ruled 37 AD – 41 AD). He was the father of the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger(Lucius) who was tutor ofNero.

BackgroundEdit

Seneca the Elder is the first of the gens Annaea of whom there is definite

Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the first of the gens of whom we have definite knowledge, was a native of Cordubain the province of Hispania Ulterior. However, his name and those of his descendants are clearly of Roman character, arguing that the family was descended from Roman colonists, and not native to Spain. Statius Annaeus, a friend of the family at Rome, may well have been a kinsman, and hispraenomen suggests that the Annaei might have been of Oscan origin

Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin

08-08-2017, 06:49 PM

Marcus Ulpius Traianus was born on 18 September 53AD in the Roman province ofHispania Baetica[10](in what is nowAndalusiain modernSpain), in the city ofItalica(now in the municipal area of Santiponce, in the outskirts ofSeville). Although frequently designated the first provincial emperor, and dismissed by later writers such as Cassius Dio (himself of provincial origin) as "an Iberian, and neither an Italian nor even an Italiot", Trajan appears to have hailed on his father's side from the area of Tuder (modernTodi) inUmbria, at the border withEtruria, and on his mother's side from theGens Marcia, of an Italic family ofSabineorigin. Trajan's birthplace of Italica was founded as a Roman military colony ofItaliansettlers in 206BC, though it is unknown when the Ulpii arrived there. It is possible, but cannot be substantiated, that Trajan's ancestors married local women and lost their citizenship at some point, but they certainly recovered their status when the city became amunicipiumwithLatin citizenshipin the mid-1st century BC.[11][12]

Cristiano viejo

08-10-2017, 02:43 PM

Spanish source...
I'm trying to find something more reliable in Italian and English but nothing...
And why should Italian and English sources be more reliable than the Spanish? :picard1:

Everybody who? Post examples :rolleyes:
And don't come up here with the Otranto siege which was fought by Italians (Neapolitans) and Hungarians.
The best example is that Turks did not conquer Italy, which was being defended by Spain because it belonged to them.
Other examples that you can find it is all these defensive buildings that were built in Sardegna, Naples, Sicily...

Fix'd. Again with your generalizations? :rolleyes:
And the southern realms were separate kingdoms in personal union. Milan was inherited by Charles V (then given to Philip II) at the death of the last Sforza without heirs.

Dont fix anything, not only South Italy was conquered and ruled by Spaniards, too almost entire Lombardy.

You are being very delusional deniying so clear fact about Spaniards conquering Italy, fighting mainly against French, and an a minor extent against own Italians (who already in these times were clearly secondary in militar topics, even in their own nations).

Venetians have had a longer history of fights against the Ottomans, when your country was under moorish rule Venetians already engaged them.
When Venetians started their continuous defeats... sorry, their fights against the Ottomans, my country already had conquered the half of your :thumb001:

Now you have to explain how this happened... if we were under Moorish rule :)

MinervaItalica

08-10-2017, 04:12 PM

The best example is that Turks did not conquer Italy, which was being defended by Spain because it belonged to them.

Post at least some battle involving Spain that defends Italy. ;) Some battles that explain those centuries of protection and especially battles of Spain against Ottomans without the help of Italian states. :rolleyes:

I've already posted battles of Genoa kicking the Saracens in your peninsula ALONE and still you gave me nothing.

Dont fix anything, not only South Italy was conquered and ruled by Spaniards, too almost entire Lombardy.

Exactly, almost. The Duchy of Milan is not near the same as modern Lombardy. It included the western part plus parts of Switzerland. Parts of Lombardy were under the Repubblic of Venice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Italy_1701-14.png/555px-Italy_1701-14.png

You are being very delusional deniying so clear fact about Spaniards conquering Italy, fighting mainly against French, and an a minor extent against own Italians (who already in these times were clearly secondary in militar topics, even in their own nations).

Fighting against French... with the help of the HRE :thumb001: because Spain basically needed HRE to conquer parts of Italy.

When Venetians started their continuous defeats... sorry, their fights against the Ottomans, my country already had conquered the half of your :thumb001:

I never said that they didn't lose against the Ottomans, some battle were won though. After all you can't compare the size of the two states... for a state like Venice keeping outside Italy the Ottomans for centuries it's already enough.

Now you have to explain how this happened... if we were under Moorish rule :)

It's simple, around year 1000-1200 (when Moors ruled your peninsula) and there wasn't any "Spain" yet, Venice was already fighting against berbers and saracens in the Levant. :thumb001:

Myanthropologies

08-10-2017, 04:43 PM

Why do people even bother posting in any thread started by ButlerKing? Lmao

Cristiano viejo

08-10-2017, 05:44 PM

Post at least some battle involving Spain that defends Italy. ;) Some battles that explain those centuries of protection and especially battles of Spain against Ottomans without the help of Italian states. :rolleyes:

Turgut Reis y Jeireddín Barbarroja dirigieron flotas turcas como aliadas de Francisco I de Francia contra Carlos V en el contexto de las guerras italianas en las que ambos reyes cristianos estaban enfrentados. La presencia de la flota turca en el Mediterráneo occidental, sumada a la actividad corsaria de los berberiscos, comprometía seriamente la seguridad de las costas de España e Italia, y garantizaba la continuidad de la presencia musulmana en el Norte de África.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerras_habsburgo-otomanas

Deniying the Muslim raids in Italy and how Spain defended it, it is stupid, boy. Maybe you think all these defensive towers and buildings built by Spaniards in Italy were for mere decoration :rolleyes:

Exactly, almost. The Duchy of Milan is not near the same as modern Lombardy. It included the western part plus parts of Switzerland. Parts of Lombardy were under the Repubblic of Venice.
Duchy of Milan ruled by Spain
https://media.up.ltmcdn.com/es/images/1/9/7//img_guerra_de_sucesion_espanola_batallas_principal es_1791_apartado_2_orig.jpg

Current Lombardia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Lombardy_in_Italy.svg/250px-Lombardy_in_Italy.svg.png

Quite similar, dont you think?

Fighting against French... with the help of the HRE :thumb001: because Spain basically needed HRE to conquer parts of Italy.
hahaha sure... tell that to Aragonese or to the Great Captain :picard1:

It was the opposite, ragazzo... it was the HRE who needed Spain to fight against Protestants in Central Europe, or even against Turks in Vienna and Hungary :thumb001:

I dont know what kind of history is teached in Italy... seriously :picard1:

I never said that they didn't lose against the Ottomans, some battle were won though. After all you can't compare the size of the two states... for a state like Venice keeping outside Italy the Ottomans for centuries it's already enough.
And that is why they begged the Spanish help to fight Ottomans in the Mediterranean.

It's simple, around year 1000-1200 (when Moorish ruled your peninsula) and there wasn't any "Spain" yet, Venice was already fighting against berbers and saracens in the Levant. :thumb001:

Bah, now you have to resort to "Berber" and "Sarracens" instead of Turks. :rolleyes:
You have to resort to "Spain did not exist yet". :rolleyes:

And all of that ignoring the fact that oh man... the sentence "Venice fought against Berbers and Sarracens", trying to seem super brave while you are saying that to a Spanish, is very amusing ;)

Ragazzo, Iberians already fought against these people since a lot of centuries before... :coffee:

For last, what does that have to do with my question about how could you explain the fact that Spaniards had conquered half of Italy in these times, if according you Spaniards were being ruled by Muslims? :wink

Well, I am not too interested in discussing with a child who does not know anything about the Italian Wars and the role of Spain there with a hegemonic military power. The first topic here was the bad quality of the Italian soldiers, nothing else.

And this is something that has been accredited with the running of the years, and that even Margaret Thatcher remarked in the War of Malvinas when talked about the quality of the Argentinian soldiers: "And now we will see if the Argentinians are descendants of Spaniards or Italians. If they are descendants of Italians the war will end soon, if they are of Spanish the battle will be hard, long and hard" :)

MinervaItalica

08-10-2017, 06:18 PM

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerras_habsburgo-otomanas

There were Italian states in that war, Spain wasn't alone ya know.

Deniying the Muslim raids in Italy and how Spain defended it, it is stupid, boy. Maybe you think all these defensive towers and buildings built by Spaniards in Italy were for mere decoration :rolleyes:

Never denied Muslim raids in Italy don't put words in my mouth that i never said. However i don't see Spain here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garigliano
Italian states are the ones who defended Italy from Saracens and Ottomans.

Those structures in South Italy were merely built with the money of the inhabitants. Served little to nothing, in fact, most are still intact nowadays :D

It was the opposite, ragazzo... it was the HRE who needed Spain to fight against Protestants in Central Europe, or even against Turks in Vienna and Hungary :thumb001:

Those were different wars... we are talking about the Italian Wars here not the Thirty Years War or the Habsburg-Ottoman wars (which both included Italian states).

And that is why they begged the Spanish help to fight Ottomans in the Mediterranean.

Begged? :confused: I've no clue about this statement Despacito.
What kind of history do you study? Ah yes the same history that says that Cristoforo Colombo is Spaniard... not surprised. :laugh: