sugarhitman

America is controled by the WASPS who are Anglo-Saxons who themselves are a Germanic tribe, who once controled the Roman empire and shaped Modern Europe.



You cannot seperate the Europeans from the Romans no matter how hard you try...and better yet where are your sources that does? Im tired of hearing the views of critics who often asks for sources and yet provides none.

sugarhitman

Did they include the Nordic tribes of celts and Germanic tribes. Did the extend into Europe.




And im still waiting for your sources.


And seeing that you were wrong about Greece's rule in Europe and Romes recruitment of Germanic soldiers, elementary history, its amazing how you continue to put yourself into the position of grading ones history.

ChairmanMeow

If Medo-Persia was one kingdom, why would Babylon be divided? (once again assuming, for the sake of argument, that any of this at all is historically accurate.)

The Hellenic empire consisted of many non-Greeks. Many of them in positions of power and in Alexander's army -- just like non-Italians were in positions of power and filled the ranks of the Roman armies.

This is hogwash. Stop with the special pleading.

Sheshonq

You seem to forget all the Irish and Italians - you know, Kennedys, Clintons, Giulianis, Reagans, etc.

1. More cartoons as history? When did the Germanic tribes control the Roman Empire?

2. You have a 3rd grade understanding of European history. Modern Europe was just as much shaped by the Italic tribes and by the transmission of technology and commerce from Asia and the Mideast.

Sure we can. That's what history says, after all. You having problems making history fit your religion again?
ROFLMAOROFLMAOROFLMAOROFLMAOROFLMAO

Nobody cares what you are tired of. Perhaps if you actually supported your claims with sources, then you wouldn't get so tuckered out from running away and ducking.

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing:


1. We aren't required to provide sources. We don't have to prove that your argument wrong; you have to prove that it's right.

2. This thread is STUFFED with sources that contradict your homemade history. You simply ignored all the legitimate sources in favor of white power websites and Iranian blogs.

Sheshonq

1. You haven't proven that the Celts were Nordic in the first place, remember?
2. There were Celts in the Greek empire.

They didn't have to.

yes.


As soon as you support your claims, you'll be in a position to ask others for sources. Not until then.

I was not wrong about either one. As Sitamun noted in his post, you deliberately left out what I said. Nice try, but you're outmatched here.

ChairmanMeow

There is a library of information in this thread that you are willingly ignoring. It's not our job to provide sources for you to use. You are the one making outrageous claims -- it's your burden of proof.

sugarhitman

"Cyrus seems to have united Persia and Media in a personal union; it was therefore a dual Monarchy."

"Expressions like 'king of Persia' and the 'Median kingdom' are a bit misleading. The Medes and the Persians were coalitions of Iranian nomad tribes...."

Cyrus became the new ruler of the empire of PERSIANS AND MEDES."



You were saying?



MEDO-PERSIA is an accurate title dont you think? And in Daniel the Persians are the dominant power in the kingdom of the MEDES AND PERSIANS... So......

Sheshonq

If it's not a homemade web page that he can google, then he doesn't consider it a source.

Actually picking up a BOOK - and not relying on google - would probably be enough to kill him.

Sheshonq

[QUOTE=sugarhitman;5268080]Already addressed above. You missed the point of the comment.

That's how they started. That is not how they ended up. You are about 70 years off in history; I already gave the reference for when this dual monarchy ended. So get off your lazy ass and go find it.

Moreover - and as I have already noted - Herodotus gets the information about Medes vs. Persians wrong, as a result of geographic proximity.

From your homemade Persian blog? Not a source.

I was saying that you were wrong.
I'm still saying it.
And I'm correct to do so.


No. Not unless you think that "Ireland-England" is an accurate title for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

ChairmanMeow

You pulled this sentence out of context and completely missed the point of it.

The next line: "Taking over the loosely organized Median empire also implied taking over several subject countries."

Taking something over is alot more aggressive than uniting -- the Medes were subjects of the Persians, after all, not kinsman. The point of the paragraph you so blatantly quoted out of context is this: once the Persians took over the Medes, their kingdom was no more. It was not Medo-Persia. It was Persia. Historians do not talk about Medo-Persia, they talk about the Achaemenid Persian empire.

The Median empire was a seperate state to which Persia, another seperate state, payed tribute. Persia was then rallied and conquered Media -- ending it's existence -- not uniting the two.


This just proves that peoples and borders shifted all the time; making it that much harder to consider them all one kingdom -- not to mention the fact that this is several decades off from the time period being discussed.

If we read this sentence in context, we can see that the only reason this selection of words was used is because these were the only two states being discussed. If you wanted to be more specific, Cyrus was the emperor of Persia, Media, Armenia, Parthia, Sagartia, etc. This collective empire is considered the Achaemenid Persian empire. NOT the Medo-Persian empire. The kingdom of Media, as an independent state, ended with Cyrus' conquest.