Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8804293 Quoting: KnightsTemplar.TV
The term Saka refers to the Indo-Persian peoples, many who roamed Central Asia. Not much connection with Saxons, sorry. Even Buddha sometimes is referred to as Sakyamuni Buddha. Is he a Saxon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30474188
The Greeks referred to any horse riding group on the Eurasian plains with the general catch term Scythians. BTW, they crushed the axe-wielding Sacae at Marathon. Those asiatic slaves of the Great King of Persia didn't show much. If that is what you want for your ancestors, so be it.
No, but he could have been a Sak or Saka for sure. I already established that the Greeks and as well as the Romans had identified a tribe that was "separate and different" than the Scythians. Hence, they say, “All Sakai were Scythians, but not all Scythians were Sakai.”
All I said that the word was Persic and I assume you think Asians are dumb and you being a caucasion tells me something about you.
The Scythians are Hittites. The Scythian name is from Historians who came much later anyways and the Hittites are actually a scientifically verified peoples with the science and history to back them up while there is nothing but "stories" about the Scythians.
Scythians or Sarmatians are not a myth as numerous medieval books have something to do with them and almost every map has their name marked. They are scientifically verified. The only problem is that there are several Scythian cultures. Different climatic parts have differences in culture as way of life there must be different, different local materials in everyday are used. Now it is hard to tell were these parts a different country or the same. Scientists usually refer to archaeological cultures so that not to confuse something. Scythia was a federation, so there were naturally numerous nations. Chronicles tell about them as different too.
Hittites were conquered by Scythians. It means they were a different nation.
What I had meant, is the name was a later name given to them and it was just a name to describe them as a peoples. As you stated yourself, "Scythia was a federation, so there were naturally numerous nations." To think they were all united as Scythians fighting Hittites or vice versa is foolish because no one was united back then and barely even now.
The term Scythians or Scyths is used to describe various ancient Iranian nomadic people living in Scythia, the region encompassing the Pontic-Caspian steppe and parts of Central Asia throughout the Classical Antiquity. The ancient Persians called all the Scyths (Sacae, Herodotus 7.64). Their principal tribe, the “Royal Scyths”, ruled the vast lands occupied by the nation as a whole (Herodotus 4.20), calling themselves (Scōloti, Herodotus 4.6). The term Scythian, like Cimmerian, was used to refer to a variety of groups from the Black Sea to southern Siberia and central Asia.
“They were not a specific people”, but rather variety of peoples “referred to a variety of times in history, and in several places, none of which was their original homeland.” This is key in understanding this time in history and the facts that the were certainly not united as one peoples or tribe at the time. However, they were most likely all of the same blood or very closely related.
The confusion surrounding the Saka is partly due to the Persians, but according to Herodotus; the Persians called all Scythians by the name Sakas. The English word Saxon is derived from Persic word Sacae-sun or “Sak,” which means dog. The Persians who had admired the leadership of all Scythians tribes by naming them the Sacae. The Sakai or Sakas and Sacse, Saha, Sahia, of India; or the Median Straxa, are all mutations of this same word Sak.
Albinus says, “The Saxons were descended from the Ancient Sacae (the Sakas) of Asia, and that eventually they were called Saxons.” Herodotus had said that the Persians gave the name of Sacae or Sacans to all the Scythians and Pliny says that the Sakai, who settled in Armenia, were named Sacassani. Ptolemy also mentions a Scythian people sprung from the Sakai, by the name of Saxones.”
In addition, there is absolutely no science to proof of Scythian Kings, battles or the name ever existed back then on any monuments or stone tablets. No, the Scythians were NOT conquered by the Hittites. However, with the Hittites we not only have science, we have biblical sources and we do not only have the bible, we have the Egytpian who wrote about them and the Assyrians as well. In addition, we have them who wrote in their own words on tablets as well.
Please show me anywhere in stone a word that represents Scythian or Scythian Royalty? I bet you cannot find anything.