12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

tklivory wrote...

By Evita myth, do you mean the legend that was deliberately crafted by them, or what came up after her death among the populace?

Both.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I sadly never researched Latin America in depth. From what I know, Eva sounds like a shrewd politician who knew how to craft a powerful image.

Would I consider her to be on par with the likes of Attaturk, in terms of statecraft, however? Not really.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 09 décembre 2011 - 08:48 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My definition is purely relative. Of course the vikings had sophisticated boat making techniques. But their political / economic system and structure, their cultural / intellectual output and their technology in fields other than boat making, was relatively primitive.

They also had sophisticated smithing, stonework and navigation technology.  Researchers are still trying to figure out how they were able to do some of the things they did.  Their political system was based on local assemblies rather than kings- does that make them primitive?

"Primitive" societies in Polynesia were also able to pull of navigation and sailing feats that Mediterranean nations of the same time period could not have matched.

Early Slavs developed largely independent of Rome, and historians still cannot explain how they managed to create such a wide and solid field of influence, eclipsing seemingly far more powerful empires like the Avars and becoming the sole dominant power in eastern Europe.  They developed some pretty advanced agricultural techniques for the time, and their polity was again based on a more democratic model than imperial.  So are they primitive just because they're not Roman, Greek or Arab?

I think such judgments are largely owing to lack of knowledge and to the typical western- Mediterranean prejudice, that everything those societies did was better just because they did it.

[Costin_Razvan]

I think she was one of the few brilliant politicians in a modern age where we have farts like Sarkozy or Obama. Kenedy wasn't a great leader either besides a few words he once said.

At the end however I think she died too young to become one of the greatest politcians of the modern age, but she had the potential to do so.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 09 décembre 2011 - 08:54 .

[tklivory]

I love reading about Evita because she is, in many ways, a dichotomy. On the one hand, a woman who only got powerful because of who she married (NOT ABSOLUTE TRUTH, just reflecting the opinions I see written about her). On the other hand (again, depending on who you read), a woman who's husband only got powerful because of her.

Still, it's fun to ask one question: who's body got preserved?

I do know that she pissed off a lot of people in power in Argentina at the time, which I fully stand behind. The surge of the populist movement that was moving through South America at the time was certainly aided by her activities, and she rode the crest of that wave a respectable distance, being one of the first South American women to really gain international acclaim (and disparagement - stupid British King)

Anyway, I find her a fascinating figure in history. I haven't studied the political aspects of her influence as much as I should have, but she's up there with Eleanor of Aquitaine and Empress Wu Zetian with my favorite biographies/&c to read.

Modifié par tklivory, 09 décembre 2011 - 09:00 .

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I sadly never researched Latin America in depth. From what I know, Eva sounds like a shrewd politician who knew how to craft a powerful image.

Would I consider her to be on par with the likes of Attaturk, in terms of statecraft, however? Not really.

In terms of how the people view them, though, there are definite similarities.  I don't know if Argentina has the annual ceremony of remembrance of Evita that Turkey has for Attaturk, but I do know that the veneration felt towards both of them in their respective countries is definitely comparable.

Modifié par tklivory, 09 décembre 2011 - 09:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
 Their political system was based on local assemblies rather than kings- does that make them primitive?

No, the lack of bureaucracy, centralization, institutions does.

"Primitive" societies in Polynesia were also able to pull of navigation and sailing feats that Mediterranean nations of the same time period could not have matched.

One field. I do not deny that they can surpass more accomplished cultures in certain fields. I am talking about on the whole.

Early Slavs developed largely independent of Rome, and historians still cannot explain how they managed to create such a wide and solid field of influence, eclipsing seemingly far more powerful empires like the Avars and becoming the sole dominant power in eastern Europe.  They developed some pretty advanced agricultural techniques for the time, and their polity was again based on a more democratic model than imperial.  So are they primitive just because they're not Roman, Greek or Arab?

No, I never said they were primitive. In the early middle ages, they were more or less on par with the rest of Europe. Were they however in the same period as Rome in its zenith, it is rather obvious which civilization would have been the more accomplished, powerful and influencial, as well as the more sophisticated. 

EDIT: of course at that time, a civilization that would become more sophisticated and accomplished was on the rise (Islam). So if your question was, were the slavs primitive when compared to the Islamic Civilization, I say yes they were and so was all of Europe.

Ethno-centrism has nothing to do with it, all these cultures and civilizations collapsed and they became primitive in turn.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 09 décembre 2011 - 09:18 .

[Addai]

Okay, so in your mind advanced= political bureacracy.

I live in California, we must be the most freaking advanced culture the world has ever seen. lol

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai67 wrote...

Okay, so in your mind advanced= political bureacracy.

I live in California, we must be the most freaking advanced culture the world has ever seen. lol

No. Knight is saying that being advanced as a civilization is not just execeling in one or two fields, but in ALL fields.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 09 décembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[tklivory]

I'm curious: what are these fields? For the sake of this discussion, I mean. I can't honestly think of a single civilization that I would consider excellent in *everything*, so i would like to know what parameters we're discussing... Governmental structure? Religion interactivity therein? Military deployment? Technological development? Just trying to make sure if I chime in it's relevant to the discussion... I tend to get *sidetracked*, I know...

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I sadly never researched Latin America in depth. 

You're not missing out on much really...

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
No. Knight is saying that being advanced as a civilization is not just execeling in one or two fields, but in ALL fields.

Using highly subjective standards, even if you could measure such a thing.  What is "excelling"?

You're just picking winners and losers according to your own prejudices.  It's a boring topic anyway.  As I said a few times- I don't care about the superegos of various cultures.  That's not how I pick what I give attention to.

[Costin_Razvan]

You're just picking winners and losers according to your own prejudices.

And you're not?

On subjectivity. There is no such as objectivity in viewing history, as a historian you are encouraged to look at what happened and form your own opinions on events, you are not a book that just recites what happens. Opionion matters a damn lot.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 10 décembre 2011 - 12:18 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...

I'm curious: what are these fields? For the sake of this discussion, I mean. I can't honestly think of a single civilization that I would consider excellent in *everything*, so i would like to know what parameters we're discussing... Governmental structure? Religion interactivity therein? Military deployment? Technological development? Just trying to make sure if I chime in it's relevant to the discussion... I tend to get *sidetracked*, I know...

Of course no single civilization has ever excelled in everything and at all times. But on the whole, some excelled more than others.

In what fields? Things like government structure, scale and efficiency. Economic development and pro-active influence. Dynamic, productive and stable society. High cultural output with regards to art, architecture, literrature and philosophy. Science and tech. Military sophistication and efficiency. And the list goes on. All looked at from a relative power perspective, in otherwords how they rank in these areas when compared to others in the same period.

EDIT: also, how much influence they had in the course of history.

These I believe can be determined with a lot of objectivity.

That does not mean that these civilizations are more interesting, or have more moral worth or are just more worthy of respect.

EDIT: For example, let's compare Islamic polities (Andalus, Fatimid and Abassid Caliphates) with Western Europe between the 8th and 13th centuries.

In terms of government, it's tricky because both of them had very messy systems and political defragmentation all over the place (the Roman Empire also had huge problems, except it had the 200 years of Pax Romana thanks in large part to Augustus). In terms of scale and perhaps bureaucratic sophistication, I would rank Islamic polities higher. In terms of society, social mobility was larger in Islamic polities (serfdom did not exist as in the west) and were relatively stable considering how diverse they were, which also increased productivity. In terms of cultural output, I think it's obvious which civilization produced more when we compare the number of books in the biggest library in Europe (Paris at the time) with Baghdad or Cordoba. In terms of science, there is no doubt that the Islamic civilization was on the whole more advanced. In terms of tech, other than engineering castles and forts, the Islamic civilization was also ahead in a lot of areas.  In terms of military, it's more tricky and heavily dependant on the political context. When the Islamic polities were divided they got screwed and the same is true of Western European polities. In terms of economy, Islamic polities were more prosperous and very commercially active.

In terms of influence, one only needs to compare the influence of the Crusades on the Middle East with the influence of the Muslims on Europe (not just Spain, but also Sicily and influence on Venice). Undoubtedly the latter had a larger and more productive / beneficial impact.

So in light of this, in the specified period (which imo lasts till about the 17th century, when the reversal becomes clear and complete, after centuries of slowly shifting to one side), the Islamic Civilization was more advanced than the Western European one. So the latter was primitive compared to the former. Just like now the former is obviously primitive compared to the latter.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 décembre 2011 - 04:19 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You're just picking winners and losers according to your own prejudices.

And you're not?

On subjectivity. There is no such as objectivity in viewing history, as a historian you are encouraged to look at what happened and form your own opinions on events, you are not a book that just recites what happens. Opionion matters a damn lot.

I am, but never claimed otherwise.  You talk as though these things are absolutes.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 décembre 2011 - 03:36 .

[Costin_Razvan]

You talk as though these things are absolutes.

I've never shied away from an argument or discussion. Hell I welcome it, it's a great challenge on an intellectual level to have to argue my PoV. But I expect good arguments to counter mine, if not...then I dismiss people's opinion.

For what it's worth Addai you're one of the very few people who have constantly challenged me and Knight, and I thank you for it.

Also I admire the Dacians, the Goths, the Huns under Attila, the Carthaginians, the Armenians, the Persians and the Egyptians because all of them had a lasting impact on the world and influenced it quite a bit. The Germans before Charlamgne? No. The British tribes? no, the Vikings? Most of their knowledge was lost. The Gauls before being conquered by Caesar? No.

This is the nicest thing I've ever read from you Costin. It explains A LOT about you and it validates the people you associate with on these forums.

For what it is worth, I'm impressed.

Why thank you.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 10 décembre 2011 - 01:36 .

[Cobwebmaster]

Mmm must have strayed on to the wrong thread. Thought this was about Loghain not the rise and fall of socio economic/militant groups.. My bad I guess!

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

For what it's worth Addai you're one of the very few people who have constantly challenged me and Knight, and I thank you for it.

Also I admire the Dacians, the Goths, the Huns under Attila, the Carthaginians, the Armenians, the Persians and the Egyptians because all of them had a lasting impact on the world and influenced it quite a bit. The Germans before Charlamgne? No. The British tribes? no, the Vikings? Most of their knowledge was lost. The Gauls before being conquered by Caesar? No.

Thank you, and I repeat again- I don't care whether a culture had a lasting impact or not.  That's largely an accident of history and has no bearing on whether or not I admire a particular group.  The northern Europeans' achievements were all subject to extreme weather fluctuations and isolation, for example- the southern European peoples didn't have Ice Ages to contend with- something which ended a cultural flourishing in Iceland, just to cite an example.  The Vikings also tended to push boundaries where no one else had been before.  That meant they weren't out conquering major population centers of the Old World, but they were still doing something courageous and visionary.

@Cobwebmaster- We've discussed everything Loghain to death and back.  If you have a topic you want to discuss, bring it up.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 décembre 2011 - 09:45 .

[Costin_Razvan]

So to not let this thread die...recent news in politcs.

Britain vetoed a French/German proposal brought to the EU to make changes to the EU treaty and what could have been the first step in creating a European Federation type state.

Oh well, it's a delay if nothing else. If the British are stupid enough not to realize that a strong unified Europe would be a good thing then I think they should leave or be kicked out, especially since EVERY other member state voted yes for the changes.

Of course there are some against the idea of forming European Federation, some arguing that smaller countries like mine would lose their identity and cultural heritage...but we are already losing that, and the only way to preserve it is for Europe to become united or the Americans, Chinese and perhaps even Russians ( if they rise again ) will sweep us under the rug.

[blothulfur]

As an englishman i'm somewhat split on this issue, on the one hand I don't want our elected government over ruled by non elected corrupt beauracrats who answer to no one and are not even obliged to reveal their finances to public scrutiny. On the other hand Westminster has long since stopped representing the people and now merely ensures its own survival and the enrichment of its members.

In all honesty I can't see the union working, too much history and too little camaraderie exist for each of the member states to forget the old wounds that we have inflicted on each other. I may be wrong and the dream of rome may arise again, but already tiers are forming in the alliance and at the end of the day the ruling franco-german politicians will seek to appease their voters rather than the citizens of other nations.

It's nice to see a british politician showing some balls for a change, hasn't happened since Maggie Thatcher went to Brussels.

[Costin_Razvan]

I don't think there's any real democracy in any of the European countries, just public elected faces who play a nice game while the real power resides with the men in the shadows who own corporations.

Personally I would prefer a dictatorship with a strong public ruler...at least then I would know who rules my country, which I think is better then having this superficial bull**** of freedom speech and "free and fair" elections.

But my favorite system would be ...I guess something like Iran, with a authoritarian leader at head, that is elected by a council and then a civil elected gov..ofc Iran has many issues ( not the least of which is the religious component of it's gov. ) but the core of the system there is quite solid I think.

As for the European Union, I think whatever hate existed between rival nations has long since evaporated after the Cold War where the USA and Russia played ping ball with us, and they still do it.

As for Cameron showing some balls...yeah well besides Thatcher everyone of them for a long time, even Churchill, has been an idiot. Churchill did not even want to consider a peace treaty with Hitler cause it would have meant losing some parts of the British Empire, but yeah he dug the grave, killed it and buried your Empire which he wanted to save, way to go!

The fun part is that I've heard people say: "Well the Empire was already dying."

Yeah, but while the Empire was clinging to a cliff Churchill was the one to come and isntead of helping it up he crushed it's hands.

P.S. Blot why is your profile set to complete privacy mode even to people on friends list?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[blothulfur]

A few english generals said of churchill that he was instrumental to Britain standing at the beginning of the war, but almost helped lose it towards the end. Got to admit he was not in the same league as his illustrious ancestors, then again not many folk are.

I'll have to look at my privacy settings, though to be honest i've got sod all information on here. I'm of a rather spartan disposition.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

blothulfur wrote...

As an englishman i'm somewhat split on this issue, on the one hand I don't want our elected government over ruled by non elected corrupt beauracrats who answer to no one and are not even obliged to reveal their finances to public scrutiny. On the other hand Westminster has long since stopped representing the people and now merely ensures its own survival and the enrichment of its members.

In all honesty I can't see the union working, too much history and too little camaraderie exist for each of the member states to forget the old wounds that we have inflicted on each other. I may be wrong and the dream of rome may arise again, but already tiers are forming in the alliance and at the end of the day the ruling franco-german politicians will seek to appease their voters rather than the citizens of other nations.

It's nice to see a british politician showing some balls for a change, hasn't happened since Maggie Thatcher went to Brussels.

QFT.

I would definitely like to see Britain leave the EU, and this from a pro-British postion.  Britain was much better off when it was maintaining more active trade and diplomatic relations with its commonwealth countries than it was with Europe, on many fronts. It was perhaps Britain's biggest modern day political blunder, in my opinion. And when I heard that Cameron gave the finger to the treaty, my husband and I were very glad to hear it.

I really hate the European Union. After 4 years of living in the Euro-Zone and dealing with the schitzophrenic retardation of Brussels and the constant attempts to inflict their brand of eurocrat idocy on everyone, like it or not.

I personally believe the time is right for Britain to cut lose and strike out on its own. It might be rough and complicated for a few years, but in the long run, the knocks will be worth it, if Westminster pulls their heads out of their asses and plays its cards right.

[Costin_Razvan]

I really hate the European Union. After 4 years of living in the Euro-Zone and dealing with the schitzophrenic retardation of Brussels and the constant attempts to inflict their brand of eurocrat idocy on everyone, like it or not.

Perhaps, but I prefer the retardation of Brussels to the retardation of the US nowadays. In fact I think the US has set new standards on how to NOT run the world.

As for Britain standing on it's own again...doubt it's going to happen.

 
Got to admit he was not in the same league as his illustrious ancestors, then again not many folk are. 

He was great at leading the war I think, just that his political strategic aim of saving the British Empire failed directly because of him shouting for Britain to fight on. One thing I do respect about his is that he also shouted for them to start a war with the USSR while everyone was ****ting their pants at the prospect of fighting Stalin.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:10 .