>ITT: We post figures with doubtful historicity and people answer why they believe they were historical people or fictional/mythicalI start with Gilgamesh, king of Uruk.>Hardmode: No Jesus of Nazareth, this one just calls on the schizos to join the thread
Paris/Alexander, king of Troy. Attested in contemporary Hittite tablets.
One thing that surprised me about greek sources was the existence of the hereacliads, a dynasty claiming decent from heracles.It convinced me Hercules might have been a real person.
>>18342505
>>18342505Great warrior was SECRETLY MAGIC is a natural development, and doesn't preclude existence. Lakota folklore is already saying Crazy Horse had powerful magic. His magic was illegal gun-running. (Though bro could fight and is right up there with Patton and Geronimo on the list of "Americans who can kick butt.") If God delays, in a few centuries white historians will see this and doubt he existed but Sioux will be like "of course he did."
>>18342505It doesn't seem too far fetched that an early king of Uruk did some impressive deeds and was uncommonly strong (for a historical example of a very physically strong ruler take Augustus of Saxony, King of Poland).My suggestion is Lycurgus.>>18343184Anglo-Saxon dynasties regularly claimed descent from Odin, and famously Julius Caesr claimed to be descended from Venus. It doesn't by itself prove anything.
>>18342505I am doubtful of anyone who supposedly lived and died before I was born.
>>18343184I think A LOT of ancient Greek heroes were originally real people who became progressively more and more mythologized overtime
>>18345570This.Meme answer: all pagan deities were real people who gained superpowers by becoming closer with Yakub.
>>18345570I think Snorri Sturluson claimed something similar regarding the Norse gods, he argued that the Æsir were originally humans who got defied after their deaths and that the name Æsir deprives from “Asia” because they were originally from Troy.
>>18342505I think it's very plausible that Gilgamesh was a historical king that got deified and/or got combined with a mythological figure.
Is Tula the Toltec Tollan as described in later Aztec/Nahua histories? Did that "Toltec Empire" really exist even if mythologized, or is it entirely mythical?For those unaware, here is a introduction to the controversy: https://www.tumblr.com/tlatollotl/802132441801359360/the-tula-chichen-tollan-connection
>>18345570>>18345850Euhemerization was a subversion tactic to soften the blow of christianization.
>>18345981I think you meant to make this its own thread but its my opinion, and the opinion of many scholars, that the Mexica weren't actually that connected to the Toltecs and they rewrote history to connect themselves to them to give themselves legitimacy
>>18346000A bloo bloo shut the fuck up larppagan
>>18346078Try reading Bede or Saxo.
>>18342505Where did the legends of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come from?
>>18346261Some Jews read Plato's Republic and decided to copy his homework 2300 years ago, creating the Tanakh and Judaism in the process.
I dont think the Proto Indo Europeans existed.>Uh yeah all cultures from Celtic Ireland to Vedic India derive from some dudes in UkraineHimmler-tier schizobabbling
>>18346587that's not the claim about Proto-Indo-Europeans, they "just" provided the original language those languages are descendants from. Which is a very solid hypothesis if you compare the vocabulary
>>18346587>>18346593The IE "theory" being genetic is well studied and attested by now. For the latter half of the last century, academia was scrambling to make it just a matter of linguistics rather than an ethnic deal because >muh nazis bad>goy identity bad>D&C goodbut there is can be no doubt by now that we are their descendants too, unless you want to argue with the methodology of genetic science. Where Himmler was wrong was that he (and many others at the time) thought the proto-Aryans (aka. Proto-Indo-Europeans, aka. Western Steppe Herders or WSH) came from Scandinavia because Nordics are such a distinctly different race from the rest of the genus, but what sets Nordics apart appears to be a combination of higher WSH than average, but also significant amounts of WHG patrilineal lines. Everywhere else, the non-WSH patrilineal lines went extinct when the WSH showed up.
>>18346607Having the R1 Y-chromosome doesn't make you their "descendant" in the way you think it does anon. It means you have AN ancestor, maybe even ONLY one, among all the countless other ancestors you have from that time period. The IE's didn't replace the populations of the places they migrated to, they merged with them. Which is something every other migrating group does. The reason linguistics is all people want to talk about regarding IE's is because it's the part about them that's actually unique. Everyone leaves their chromosomes lying around, but it's much rarer to leave your language lying around, especially pre-state formation, and no one else ever did it over such a wide geographical area.
>>18347336>It means you have AN ancestorWhat a bizarre opinion. If you have an ancestor, then you are a descendant of his by definition.>The IE's didn't replace the populations of the places they migrated to, they merged with them.Never said they didn't, just that in Europe, outside of Scandinavia, the people they merged with were all women.>Everyone leaves their chromosomes lying aroundPatently absurd.>no one else ever did it over such a wide geographical area.Because no one else from the time period spread their genetics over such a wide geographical area as the PIE and their descendants did.
