This is Peak Eastern Europe/Balkans

[TsarTsar444]

i meant own blood with your people jfl
your family a bitch insteead of fighting they obeyed like cucks

My family/tribe didn't pay any taxes to the Sultan for 200 years, during that time your Romanian ancestors were vassals and gave jannisaries and payedthe empire with monthly wheat from your own farms. It was not until the 1730's that after too long fighting that the head of the tribe made an agreement with the sultan that he gives us lands, farms and positions and we will become muslim. How is this cucked? They made a very good trade

 

[goat2x]

My family/tribe didn't pay any taxes to the Sultan for 200 years, during that time your Romanian ancestors were vassals and gave jannisaries and payedthe empire with monthly wheat from your own farms. It was not until the 1730's that after too long fighting that the head of the tribe made an agreement with the sultan that he gives us lands, farms and positions and we will become muslim. How is this cucked? They made a very good trade

your cuck family got land from your own ppl
im not even genetically romanian only like 20-30% by that still better than invading and enslaving isnt it?

 

[sandcelmuttcel]

Not yamnaya people. There is no proof of yamnaya speaking Indoeuropean languages at all.
Andronovo culture, the culture of earliest iranics is derived from fatyanovo culture (which is the eastern branch of CWC)
If my phone was capable of taking screenshots I'd attach a screenshot. Since it isn't, I place the responsibility on you to Google andronovo culture on your own

i read andronovo culture split into more cultures one of them was fatyanovo. from what i quickly gathered andronovo culture was responsible for indo-iranian culture thus indo-iranian culture preceded the fatyanovo so there's no link.

i thought the original migrating people which also spread the indo-european language were the yamnaya people.

 

[goat2x]

My family/tribe didn't pay any taxes to the Sultan for 200 years, during that time your Romanian ancestors were vassals and gave jannisaries and payedthe empire with monthly wheat from your own farms. It was not until the 1730's that after too long fighting that the head of the tribe made an agreement with the sultan that he gives us lands, farms and positions and we will become muslim. How is this cucked? They made a very good trade

Ye it is cucked, very cucked.

 

[TsarTsar444]

your cuck family got land from your own ppl
im not even genetically romanian only like 20-30% by that still better than invading and enslaving isnt it?

No they didn't, the land we got was from a abandoned region after the devastating wars that happened between Austria and the Turks around 1683 and 1740. There was nobody there so my family didn't kill 'our own blood'.

 

[Deleted member 5746]

i read andronovo culture split into more cultures one of them was fatyanovo. from what i quickly gathered andronovo culture was responsible for indo-iranian culture so indo-iranian culture preceded the fatyanovo thus there's no link.

i thought the original migrating people which also spread the indo-european language were the yamnaya people.

No, fatyanovo and CWC preceeded andronovo, u got it backwards.
And yamnaya people preceeded fatyanovo and CWC.
The timeline is such.

Neolithic age : CHG mixed with EHG and created yamnaya
Bronze age: Yamnaya heads west and fucks LBK women, creating CWC
Then CWC heads back east and starts being mog Indoeuropean
Fatyanovo being the eastern branch of CWC

 

[sandcelmuttcel]

No, fatyanovo and CWC preceeded andronovo, u got it backwards.
And yamnaya people preceeded fatyanovo and CWC.
The timeline is such.

Neolithic age : CHG mixed with EHG and created yamnaya
Bronze age: Yamnaya heads west and fucks LBK women, creating CWC
Then CWC heads back east and starts being mog Indoeuropean
Fatyanovo being the eastern branch of CWC

ops i made a mistake because i looked into it quickly.
actually adronovo is not direct successor to fatyanovo
fatyanovo spawned sintashta and then sintashta spawned adronovo
also it says both succeeded the corded ware culture which is confusing
i'm gonna look more into it later.

 

[TsarTsar444]

@goat2x

Kelmendi (tribe) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Kelmendi is mentioned as early as the 14th century and as a territorial tribe it developed in the 15th century. In the Balkans, it is widely known historically for its longtime resistance to the Ottoman Empire and its extensive battles and raids against the Ottomans which reached as far north as Bosnia and as far east as Bulgaria. By the 17th century, they had grown so much in numbers and strength that their name was sometimes used for all tribes of northern Albania and Montenegro."

 

[Deleted member 10913]

well they killed/raped/enslaved your own blood so yeah,

When did this happen?
it was a dynastic Empire in which the only loyalty demanded of its inhabitants was
fidelity to the Sultan.5 The cults and cultural traditions of the colonized peoples were
respected under the figure of the millet that will be analyzed later, although the preeminence
in military and legal public positions would be Turkish-Muslim, so in the first centuries of the
Empire, a vizier could be Albanian, Croatian or Abkhazian, but for official matters was
communicated solely and exclusively in Turkish, this was the language of power and
4Goodwin, op. cit. P. 25
5 Imber, Colin: El Imperio Otomano: 1300-1650. translation by Jordi Vidal. Barcelona. Vergara Grupo Zeta, 2004. 412
p. maps; 25 cm. p. 20-21.


therefore enjoyed great prestige.6 These first centuries of harmony, conquests, and expansion
with prominent governments would begin to decay with the arrival of the Enlightenment and
the change of economic core from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic

 

[Deleted member 10987]

When did this happen?
it was a dynastic Empire in which the only loyalty demanded of its inhabitants was
fidelity to the Sultan.5 The cults and cultural traditions of the colonized peoples were
respected under the figure of the millet that will be analyzed later, although the preeminence
in military and legal public positions would be Turkish-Muslim, so in the first centuries of the
Empire, a vizier could be Albanian, Croatian or Abkhazian, but for official matters was
communicated solely and exclusively in Turkish, this was the language of power and
4Goodwin, op. cit. P. 25
5 Imber, Colin: El Imperio Otomano: 1300-1650. translation by Jordi Vidal. Barcelona. Vergara Grupo Zeta, 2004. 412
p. maps; 25 cm. p. 20-21.
therefore enjoyed great prestige.6 These first centuries of harmony, conquests, and expansion
with prominent governments would begin to decay with the arrival of the Enlightenment and
the change of economic core from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic

124 000 Prophets ???????

 

[Deleted member 10913]

124 000 Prophets ???????

Ofcourse. Not all of them are named. Only like the big 25 are named i believe.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Afcourse. Not all of them are named. Only like the big 25 are named i believe.

I think 70 were named
Nearly all of them were hebrews
But why the number of 124 000 ?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

I think 70 were named
Nearly all of them were hebrews
But why the number of 124 000 ?

I tought it was 25 @ThatDjangoWalk

However the case with 124.000 is that all times and locations there where prophets. Out of this number some accounts hold 313 and others 315 also to be Resül.

bk. Ahmed b. Hanbel, el-Müsned 5/265-266; İbn Hibbân, es-Sahîh, 2/77)

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I tought it was 25 @ThatDjangoWalk

However the case with 124.000 is that all times and locations there where prophets. Out of this number some accounts hold 313 and others 315 also to be Resül.

bk. Ahmed b. Hanbel, el-Müsned 5/265-266; İbn Hibbân, es-Sahîh, 2/77)

So its 315 or 124 000 ?

 

[Deleted member 10913]

So its 315 or 124 000 ?

There is a diffrent between being a messanger(prophet) and also being a Resül and being a Prophet that came with revalations.

124000 prophet(messangers) 315 Resül(English for apostle)

 

[Deleted member 10987]

There is a diffrent between being a messanger(prophet) and also being a Rasül and being a Prophet that came with revalations.

124000 prophet(messangers) 315 Resül(English for apostle)

Ok
So Jesus, mousa were Rasuls ? (I know that the term from arabic too)

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Ok
So Jesus, mousa were Rasuls ? (I know that the term from arabic too)

Yes however their names are also known. On top of that they are 2 of the big 3.
Not all names of the 315 are known let alone 124.000.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

In arabic
Prophet = Nabi
Messanger = Rasul

 

[Deleted member 10987]

There is also people like dhurl qarnayn, al khidr
I think those are apostles ?

 

[goat2x]

When did this happen?
it was a dynastic Empire in which the only loyalty demanded of its inhabitants was
fidelity to the Sultan.5 The cults and cultural traditions of the colonized peoples were
respected under the figure of the millet that will be analyzed later, although the preeminence
in military and legal public positions would be Turkish-Muslim, so in the first centuries of the
Empire, a vizier could be Albanian, Croatian or Abkhazian, but for official matters was
communicated solely and exclusively in Turkish, this was the language of power and
4Goodwin, op. cit. P. 25
5 Imber, Colin: El Imperio Otomano: 1300-1650. translation by Jordi Vidal. Barcelona. Vergara Grupo Zeta, 2004. 412
p. maps; 25 cm. p. 20-21.
therefore enjoyed great prestige.6 These first centuries of harmony, conquests, and expansion
with prominent governments would begin to decay with the arrival of the Enlightenment and
the change of economic core from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic

this doesnt mean anything does it if the history shows otherwise?
one can write about ethics yet their behaviour conflits that

 

[goat2x]

@goat2x

Kelmendi (tribe) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Kelmendi is mentioned as early as the 14th century and as a territorial tribe it developed in the 15th century. In the Balkans, it is widely known historically for its longtime resistance to the Ottoman Empire and its extensive battles and raids against the Ottomans which reached as far north as Bosnia and as far east as Bulgaria. By the 17th century, they had grown so much in numbers and strength that their name was sometimes used for all tribes of northern Albania and Montenegro."

brag thread?
outcome doesnt change but its alteast respectable

 

[Deleted member 10913]

one can write about ethics yet their behaviour conflits that

Yes ofcourse, can you however point a specific point in history where the rape, pillaging and killings (besides wars) happened.

 

[Deleted member 10913]

There is also people like dhurl qarnayn, al khidr
I think those are apostles ?

Idk tbh, you should ask someone with more knowledge.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yes ofcourse, can you however point a specific point where the rape, pillaging and killings (besides wars) happened.

I honestly think that mass killing is better than mass rape

 

[Deleted member 10987]

brag thread?
outcome doesnt change but its alteast respectable

And what did the Romanians do to the ottomans beside Vlad ?

 

[goat2x]

Yes ofcourse, can you however point a specific point where the rape, pillaging and killings (besides wars) happened.

where the killings were obvsly in war
rape i meant sexual slavery
pillaging? like taking little children from their family

 

[goat2x]

And what did the Romanians do to the ottomans beside Vlad ?

im croatian + italian + romania
nearlyall the same percentages

 

[Deleted member 10913]

I honestly think that mass killing is better than mass rape

Yea but killing was done against men. Nobody 'mass raped' men jfl, only sodomites in biblical times is what i am aware of.

 

[goat2x]

And what did the Romanians do to the ottomans beside Vlad ?

also what kind of an arguement is this?
jfl i didnt even make this point, he said ottomans were good not me

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yea but killing was done against men. Nobody 'mass raped' men jfl, only sodomites in biblical times is what i am aware of.

Not im talking also about women
I would rather have them killed than rape

 

[Deleted member 10987]

im croatian + italian + romania
nearlyall the same percentages

Yes but then why insult bosnians when they also resisted ?

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yea but killing was done against men. Nobody 'mass raped' men jfl, only sodomites in biblical times is what i am aware of.

I think a few raped also the men to break any fighting spirit

 

[goat2x]

Yes but then why insult bosnians when they also resisted ?

i didnt insult them at all, its actually the opposite i tried to defend them by saying (your brothers etc)
i insulted the person only not the nation

 

[Deleted member 10913]

where the killings were obvsly in war

Then it's not something expetional. Both sides participated in this.

rape i meant sexual slavery

It was slavery. Wether it was sexual or not is something a slave owner decided.

like taking little children from their family

Idk, if this can be applied to pillaging by definition,however was it something bad? Considering the fact that becoming elite soldier at that time was the best job you could have.

 

[goat2x]

Then it's not something expetional. Both sides participated in this.

It was slavery. Wether it was sexual or not is something a slave owner decided.

Idk, if this can be applied to pillaging by definition,however was it something bad? Considering the fact that becoming elite soldier at that time was the best job you could have.

Yes obvsiouly
1,but one is tried to defend their homeland the other is trying to take over this arguement is retarded


2, sexual slavery is like rape on steroids = rape everyday


3, yet it was something very bad you fucking idiot
families had their little kids taked away imagine the little kids emotions or the parents
you are honestly retarded and blinded to one stance

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Then it's not something expetional. Both sides participated in this.

It was slavery. Wether it was sexual or not is something a slave owner decided.

Idk, if this can be applied to pillaging by definition,however was it something bad? Considering the fact that becoming elite soldier at that time was the best job you could have.

Depends on point of view but where come the tradition of slave soldiers in muslim countries ?

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Yes obvsiouly
1,but one is tried to defend their homeland the other is trying to take over this arguement is retarded


2, sexual slavery is like rape on steroids = rape everyday


3, yet it was something very bad you fucking idiot
families had their little kids taked away imagine the little kids emotions or the parents
you are honestly retarded and blinded to one stance

>rape on steroids

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Depends on point of view but where come the tradition of slave soldiers in muslim countries ?

Don't knos man. Slave soldier is probably somethibg that always existed

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Don't knos man. Slave soldier is probably somethibg that always existed

Only muslims did it i think
But anyways i think its bad because it weaken nation/identity/moral

Imagine having foreigners fight for you

 

[goat2x]

Depends on point of view but where come the tradition of slave soldiers in muslim countries ?

just take a look at it from 3rd view its clear that its dumb arguement

1, if a criminal threatens you with a gun,tries to take your property and is hurting you
you end up killing him with your own gun

are you really guilty or you just defended yourself?

3, would u sacrifise your own kid to be taken away at a very young age to some western country where they forced him into converting to religion and they would attack your nation ?
but even doe you cant even witness your son growing up they take it by force to god knows where and make him fight against your own ppl, with a belief you dont even agree
you supposed to be proud cuz he is a soldier right?

its so dumb idk how could someone say shit like this honestly no morals at all

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Can't argue on what kind of emotions someone felt. Taking slave soldiers was not done on bosniana however. They volunteerd themselves.

Yes obvsiouly
1,but one is tried to defend their homeland the other is trying

Let's stick to your first point for now, for this is the one i am most knowledgable of.
In imperial times there was not something like upholding fixed borders. You either attacked and absorbed the enemy or your enemy absorbed you. The Christians in the balkans weren't pacifist and we just came and destroyed them.

They themselves attacked most of the time first hand in crusades or they joined forces with the roman empire who was quite the agressor himself.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

just take a look at it from 3rd view its clear that its dumb arguement

1, if a criminal threatens you with a gun,tries to take your property and is hurting you
you end up killing him with your own gun

are you really guilty or you just defended yourself?

3, would u sacrifise your own kid to be taken away at a very young age to some western country where they forced him into converting to religion and they would attack your nation ?
but even doe you cant even witness your son growing up they take it by force to god knows where and make him fight against your own ppl, with a belief you dont even agree
you supposed to be proud cuz he is a soldier right?

its so dumb idk how could someone say shit like this honestly no morals at all

1.I defended myself
3. Never i would fight back

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Can't argue on what kind of emotions someone felt. Taking slave soldiers was not done on bosniana however. They volunteerd themselves.

Let's stick to your first point for now, for this is the one i am most knowledgable of.
In imperial times there was not something like upholding fixed borders. You either attacked and absorbed the enemy or your enemy absorbed you. The Christians in the balkans weren't pacifist and we just came and destroyed them.

They themselves attacked most of the time first hand in crusades or they joined forces with the roman empire who was quite the agressor himself.

>forces with the roman empire who was quite the agressor himself.


Really ?

 

[goat2x]

Can't argue on what kind of emotions someone felt. Taking slave soldiers was not done on bosniana however. They volunteerd themselves.

Let's stick to your first point for now, for this is the one i am most knowledgable of.
In imperial times there was not something like upholding fixed borders. You either attacked and absorbed the enemy or your enemy absorbed you. The Christians in the balkans weren't pacifist and we just came and destroyed them.

They themselves attacked most of the time first hand in crusades or they joined forces with the roman empire who was quite the agressor himself.

yes there were fixed borders when the ottoman took over the balkans you are just lying

you are jumping all over the place

lets say if someone attacked you with a knife but you would end up grabbing your own and killed the attacker
are you guilty or not?

also the crusades arent even the same as the balkans
they were western european + catholic they even beefed w the byzanthines

 

[Deleted member 10913]

Only muslims did it i think
But anyways i think its bad because it weaken nation/identity/moral

Imagine having foreigners fight for you

However your religion was the main national identity you had. It was in a sence your passport. That is why leaving your religion was aeen as a type of agression against the state because you broke youe agreement.

Civic nationalism only came with the france revolution. Ethnic nationalism only was present to your tribe, and even on your tribe a mans loyalty was first to his family. People didn't care who fought for them. Letting a slave soldier or mercenary fight means he dies and your tribe doesn't

 

[Deleted member 10987]

However your religion was the main national identity you had. It was in a sence your passport. That is why leaving your religion was aeen as a type of agression against the state because you broke youe agreement.

Civic nationalism only came with the france revolution. Ethnic nationalism only was present to your tribe, and even on your tribe a mans loyalty was first to his family. People didn't care who fought for them. Letting a slave soldier or mercenary fight means he dies and your tribe doesn't

But what about now ?
Since nationalism/ethno-fascism is on the rise since 200 years

 

[goat2x]

Can't argue on what kind of emotions someone felt. Taking slave soldiers was not done on bosniana however. They volunteerd themselves.

Let's stick to your first point for now, for this is the one i am most knowledgable of.
In imperial times there was not something like upholding fixed borders. You either attacked and absorbed the enemy or your enemy absorbed you. The Christians in the balkans weren't pacifist and we just came and destroyed them.

They themselves attacked most of the time first hand in crusades or they joined forces with the roman empire who was quite the agressor himself.

yes you can, you should view it from the viewpoint the ppl in that country had
thats what the why the whole arguement started

 

[goat2x]

But what about now ?
Since nationalism/ethno-fascism is on the rise since 200 years

its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad

 

[Deleted member 10987]

its cope he doesnt even make sense
even in 2021 leaving your religion and converting to other is seen as very bad

No
Now today its religion + nationalism

 

[goat2x]

No
Now today its religion + nationalism

what do you mean by this