What if the Ancient Aryans came from India, or even from Pakistan, and conquered Russia, and brought their culture to Russia, thus making Russia a Slavic country, instead of a Finnish country? This is an interesting idea. What information do we have to support this theory? I want to see relevent evidence that anyone may have.
Yes, historically India always has been a much more populous, wealthier, and culturally more developed country than Russia. While Russia has been more belligerent and strong militarily than India.
We have the theory that the Aryan Indians brought Sanskrit to Russia, and the Russian language is descended from Sanskrit, thus explaining the many similarities between these two languages. It could be the other way around too, but let's pretend that it's like that. The Ancient Aryans also brought many cultural features to Russia, just like the Byzantine Greeks later.
A serious question, why didn't they bring some of the unique features of Indian culture to Russia? Notice that we have common
wooden architecture between Russia/Scandinavia and India/Southeast Asia. The common architecture is
wooden only. The stone architecture is different.
India is famous for it's stone architecture, the Hindu temples, many of which are painted in bright colors. So why don't we see such temples in Russia as well? Why are there no stone Hindu temples in Russia? Were they all destroyed? I don't even know how could such temples be destroyed. They look durable, and it would take a lot of efforts to destroy them. By comparison, wooden structures are easily burned.
China has endured a half colonization, when the Western powers and Japan attempted to colonize China, but failed. Still they managed to do a lot of damage to China, a period of time which went down in history as the Century of Humilitation. India had endured a full colonization by the British Empire. We all know the implications of that. Much of the traditional culture was destroyed or distorted, historical records were burned or rewritten.
Russia has endured
three colonizations from Western powers. The first one was during the reign of "Peter the Great" and "Catherine the Great" and their successors, the early Romanovs. Peter the Great was actually not himself. During the time when Peter the Great toured Western Europe, he was kidnapped and put in the Bastille Jail and worn an iron mask, hence he was known as the "Prisoner in the Iron Mask". The man who went back to Russia under the guise of Peter the Great was a completely different man who didn't even know Russian language. And all of his policies were pro-Western, and anti-Russian, trying to wipe out the traditional Russian clothing, forcing people to wear Western European clothing, burning of Ancient Russian historical records, persecutions against the Ancient Russian religion, genocide of the Ancient Russian nobility, banning the Ancient Russian calendar, murdering tribal elders who knew the old ways. It's clear that he and his immediate descendants were Western colonial proxies.
Similarly, the war of 1812 was a colonization of Russia by Western powers. There is evidence that Napoleon Bonaparte and Tsar Alexander worked together to conquer Russia. The Uniforms of the French and the Romanov Empire headquartered around St Petersburg were exactly the same style, the only difference was the color of their outfits, the former wore blue outfits while the latter wore green outfits.
SH Archive - Uniforms: Old World Order vs. New World Order
They were opposed by the real Russian army, who are labeled by official history as simply "the militia forces". These soldiers wore uniforms that looked like Russian nationalists. These were the same uniforms that the White Army wore during the Russian Civil War against the Red Army. These uniforms consisted of a gray kaftan, and a papakha or a "Russian officer hat" or furazhka. The furazhka was originally descended from the Russian peasant's hat. In photographs of Russian peasants from the 19th century we can see them wearing this hat. The musician in the video below is wearing the original version of this Russian peasant hat. This hat was used by the "militia forces", or the real anti-Napoleonic Russian army, because their soldiers were former peasants and they wore whatever they had available. The military just made some adjustments to this hat, such as giving it a more rigid internal structure and making the visor hard instead of flimsy.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ui2TycPA9E
Napoleon did not attack St Petersburg despite having the chance, he went straight for Moscow. But why during the war of 1812 the army of the Russian Empire was wearing foreign uniforms instead of Russian ones? That is so bizarre. Indeed only after that war the army of the Russian Empire started wearing furazhkas, as they did in World War 1. I think that during the war of 1812 the Russian militia forces won a victory over Napoleon. After the war the nationalist forces took control of the government of the Russian Empire. And we can immediately know when that happened, when the Western-style military uniforms were discarded, and the Russian-style military uniforms were adopted. Then we can know that the real Russia was restored. The Crimean War and World War 1 were attempts at overthrowing the Russian Empire. The former failed, the latter succeeded.
The third colonization of Russia was known as the Soviet Union. After World War 1 the Bolsheviks couped the Russian Empire. Then there was a Civil War between the White Army who wore real Russian uniforms, and the Red Army who wore rather bizarre uniforms. After the White Army lost, the Bolsheviks behaved themselves as real colonizers of the Russian land. They burned lots of wooden buildings, and lots of historical and religious manuscripts, and massacred certain classes of Russian people, such as the Cossacks. To say that they destroyed a lot of the traditional Russian culture would be to say nothing at all.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that the Jews .. took control of Russia through your country's revolution.
Yes, most of the Bolsheviks were Jewish or of Jewish origin. Even Stalin's real name was Dzhugashvili or Jew-gashvili.
So what am I trying to say here? My point is that Russia had it worse than most other countries. The only countries that had it worse were the Native Americans (total genocide) and the Africans (enslavement). So it stands that there was plenty of time, plenty of wars, revolutions, coups, and cultural cleansing, to wipe out the Ancient Russian culture, religion, architecture, traditions. What we have now is a mere meager crumbs of what Russia once was culturally.
There was enough time for destroying any Hindu temples that could have been located in Russia in the past. Why I still think that there weren't any Hindu temples made out of carved stone, as in Ancient India? Because the stone ruins of Ancient Egypt, Greece, India, Cambodia, and the Mayans still stand to this day, never mind however many colonizers came and went through. It's hard to destroy stone. Wood burns easily. I think that if there were any Hindu or pagan temples in Ancient Russia, they were made predominantly out of wood, and they looked like Norwegian wooden stave churches or Thailand wooden Buddhist temples. Never mind that the Norwegian stave churches are now occupied by Christians, I think that they were originally pagan places of worship. And there were definitely Norwegian stave churches in Russia itself as in the painting where the Napoleonic soldiers were setting such temples on fire.
If there would have been stone Hindu temples in Russia, it would have been easier to twist the historical narrative than to demolish them, as with the buildings in St. Petersburg. The fact that there are not leads me to think that stone Hindu temples are not part of the Ancient Aryan culture! We see wooden buildings only similar along the Scandinavia-Indonesia axis. What if the Aryans didn't bring stone Hindu temples to India, they were in India already. They just brought wooden architecture to India. The Ancient Aryans built everything out of wood, not out of stone.
What if the stone Hindu temples are part of the native Indian culture, and not part of the foreign element? What if the Aryans invaded India from the north, not four thousands of years ago, but only a thousand years ago or less? What if they came to India from Russia or Central Asia only during the Middle Ages? That sounds more plausible. Because the chain mail and conical helmets of the Sikhs and Russian Bogatyrs were worn during the Middle Ages. It does not seem plausible that the Sikhs would preserve the Russian steppe martial arts if they (the Aryans) came to India 4,000 years ago. That's a very long time to preserve such traditions. However what if they came to India and conquered the north part of the country during the Middle Ages? Totally plausible to maintain such traditions from the Middle Ages. Just look at the Arabs and what they've achieved.
What if the whole entire timeline or chronology is wrong? Then the wood-building Aryans arrived only during the Middle Ages, the entire timeline gets shifted upwards. Now if this is true, then no one gets hurt! Indian nationalists, or Tamil nationalists don't get offended because Hinduism was definitely a thing in India before the arrival of the Aryans. The carved stone Hindu temples were already existing well before the Aryans arrived. Most of the culture that's unique to India was present in India before that time. The Aryans just brought wooden buildings with carved horse heads and chicken heads on the rooftops.
And also the Aryanists don't get offended, because an Aryan Invasion of India during the Middle Ages would be in line with the evidence that I've compiled here. Specifically it explains the following things:
- Sikhs and Cossacks having identical martial arts and horseback riding skills.
- Cossacks wearing Sikh-style turbans.
- Sikhs temples resembling Russian Orthodox Churches, white walls with golden onion domes.
- The religion of the Sikhs, which is a monotheistic, non-Hindu religion.
- Rajputs and Bogatyrs, and Bulgarian warriors, and Polish warriors, and Armenians, and Persian cataphracts wearing identical uniforms of conical helmets and chainmail with sewn in small metal plates.
- Identical or very similar buildings made of carved wood in Scandinavia, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, and also in Pakistan, India, Thailand, and Indonesia.
- Europeoid looking peoples in Iran, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia.
- Identical or very similar traditional embroidery among the Slavs, Scandinavians, Persians, and South Asians.
- Indo-European languages spoken in Kurdistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Northern India only. Southern Indian languages are different.
- The R1A haplogroup gene being present in Eastern Europe and Iran, Pakistan, and North India only, but absent in South India.
- The Mauryan, Gupta, and Mughal Empires never being able to conquer South India.
But what a Middle Ages Aryan invasion of India explains most of all is the caste system. This is a system which forbids all social movement and self improvement for the lower castes. It is a system designed to segregate and subjugate. An apartheid system, which only arises when the conqerors are a foreigners compared to the native people. Such as what happened in South Africa and Israel. We know that the Aryans of India were the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the religious and political/military elites. However they themselves weren't the Vaishiyas or Shudras. The word "Aryan" means noble. Belonging to the nobility, the elites. If they were foreign conquerors, obviously they wanted the local conquered peoples to be doing their dirty work.
Only a foreign conquest justifies the existence of a caste system. Why else would a caste sytem originate in India. It does not make sense to subjugate your own people, for crying out loud! However subjugate a conquered people, totally plausible. And I have a difficulty believing that the caste system in India could have lasted for as long as it supposedly did, from the start of the Aryan invasion up till modern times, almost completely unchanged. If the Aryan invasion of India was thousands of years ago, how did such a totalitarian social system remain standing all this time? How was it so stable? However if the Aryan invasion happened during the Middle Ages, only a thousand years ago or less, then totally plausible to maintain such a system.
