144 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Ultimately, 3 of their 4 empires converted to Islam and were absorbed by the clearly more advanced culture.

That sort of comment is prejudicial so I'm going to pass over it.  The Mongols were literate and well advanced in their own way.

Their empire didn't last chiefly because the plans Genghis and Kublai Khan made for succession fell apart.  Some say it was in part because they included women in the succession and others objected.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 février 2012 - 07:48 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Ultimately, 3 of their 4 empires converted to Islam and were absorbed by the clearly more advanced culture.

That sort of comment is prejudicial so I'm going to pass over it.  The Mongols were literate and well advanced in their own way.

I know they were far from being illiterate barbarians. But they never attained the level of the civilizations they destroyed. This is not prejudice, it's fact.

The succession going wrong does not explain their absorption.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2012 - 07:52 .

[Addai]

KoP, I know from other discussions with you that you have an annoying tendency to see accidents of history in a triumphalist way. Sometimes people just lost wars. There aren't "levels" of cultures. That's a very elitist way of looking at history. I prefer a world historical approach that regards cultures on their own merits and doesn't even bother with the game of who was better than the others. A lot of western history is done on your model and to me it's repugnant.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KoP, I know from other discussions with you that you have an annoying tendency to see accidents of history in a triumphalist way. Sometimes people just lost wars. There aren't "levels" of cultures. That's a very elitist way of looking at history. I prefer a world historical approach that regards cultures on their own merits and doesn't even bother with the game of who was better than the others. A lot of western history is done on your model and to me it's repugnant.

Winning and losing wars has nothing to do with this particular argument. The Mongols won. That didn't make them better than those they massacred.

I am not impressed by this "all are equal" mode of thinking that is clearly divorced from reality. Yes all cultures have their merits and all are equal racially and intrinsically in terms of worth (a game I don't bother to play). But to pretend that at certain periods in time, they were equal to others *in general* is just laughable to me.

Yes it might be elitist. Don't see what is wrong with that. I am perfectly willign to say now that my civilization ranks very low compared to others. 

[Costin_Razvan]

Accidents of history? Seriously Addai?

Find it repugnant by the way, I don't think you have a clue how it is to live in a nation that for the most part just minded it's own business or tried to and got ****ed and raped by everyone else.

 
I am not impressed by this "all are equal" mode of thinking that is clearly divorced from reality. 

The better thinking would be: Everyone is unique and that should be accepted if not respected, but obivously we are from that becoming the norm of thinking.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 février 2012 - 08:05 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Accidents of history? Seriously Addai?

Find it repugnant by the way, I don't think you have a clue how it is to live in a nation that for the most part just minded it's own business or tried to and got ****ed and raped by everyone else.

Really?  You're going to go there again?  Not even going to address it.

[Costin_Razvan]

Yes I am going there again, you talk about Empires when you live in one that is a hegemony from an economic perspective. A very influental culture, very strong military, again you have no goddamn ****ing clue how it is to live in a nation which is everyone's ****.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 février 2012 - 08:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Accidents of history? Seriously Addai?

Find it repugnant by the way, I don't think you have a clue how it is to live in a nation that for the most part just minded it's own business or tried to and got ****ed and raped by everyone else.

Yes, it's the same problem in her argument.
She ignores the international geo-strategic context.

No matter how you view them morally, the cultures that contended themselves with "minding their business" generally got screwed. Condemn those who didn't all you want, it's irrelevent.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2012 - 08:07 .

[Major League]

all civilizations see the world through their eyes, so it is hard to be unbiased toward some cultures. they may of never attained levels of civilizations they destroyed, but they opened up Asia to Europe. to me, that is very important.

i've always wondered though, how come the mongols didn't just finish off a declining Byzantium? if you look at a map of the mongol empire, they went around them. Was i9t because the Mongols were allies with the christians?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 
I am not impressed by this "all are equal" mode of thinking that is clearly divorced from reality. 

The better thinking would be: Everyone is unique and that should be accepted if not respected, but obivously we are from that becoming the norm of thinking.

Indeed, I see worth and merit in all cultures and lessons to be learned.
That doesn't mean they are all equal in terms of advancement, when we look at certain periods.

And of course being more advanced is not set in stone, it will always be reversed.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am not impressed by this "all are equal" mode of thinking that is clearly divorced from reality.

Reality of what?

I try to approach history as neutrally as possible.  Doing anything else is bad historiography, and if you start with wrong premises then you get garbage results.  That's what's bad about elitism.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yes I am going there again, you talk about Empires when you live in one that is a hegemony from an economic perspective. A very influental culture, very strong military, again you have no goddamn ****ing clue how it is to live in a nation which is everyone's ****.

I don't care?  All that is irrelevant to me.

[Addai]

Major League wrote...
i've always wondered though, how come the mongols didn't just finish off a declining Byzantium? if you look at a map of the mongol empire, they went around them. Was i9t because the Mongols were allies with the christians?

They were allied with the Armenians, yes- against an alliance of Mamluks and Latin Christians.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 février 2012 - 08:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Reality of what?

I try to approach history as neutrally as possible.  Doing anything else is bad historiography, and if you start with wrong premises then you get garbage results.  That's what's bad about elitism.

Reality of the world. That not all attained the same level of intellectual output, scientific discovery, technological advancement...etc. That's what I mean by advancement. Again, I am not talking about their worth. 

If I was not neutral, I'd be telling you right now how awesome my people are when I just told you they suck now.
And I can just take the rest of your sentence and directed back at you as no explanation was given, but going to just pass over it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Major League wrote...
i've always wondered though, how come the mongols didn't just finish off a declining Byzantium? if you look at a map of the mongol empire, they went around them. Was i9t because the Mongols were allies with the christians?

They were allied with the Armenians, yes- against an alliance of Mamluks and Latin Christians.

Wasn't that much of an alliance. If IIRC correctly, Tyre just gave Mamluks passage and supplies. They didn't commit troops.

Hulagu's wife was of course a Nestorian Christian (as was the majority of the mongol army, they were Kipchak Turks), and that probably affected his policies. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2012 - 08:19 .

[slimgrin]

 

[Costin_Razvan]

I don't care? All that is irrelevant to me.

Your way of thinking would just lead to more wars and a hell lot more suffering in the end if it was followed by a nation. That's my damned point. The nations that thrive these days are those who fought and conquered in the past.

Life is a jungle, you are either the predator or the prey, there is no other choice available.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 février 2012 - 08:25 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Reality of the world. That not all attained the same level of intellectual output, scientific discovery, technological advancement...etc. That's what I mean by advancement. Again, I am not talking about their worth. 

The reason that is dangerous is because it starts with the question- "of what value is this civilization to the modern world?"  Hence western history's pre-occupation with Greeks and Romans.

@ Costin- Just calm down and cut the swearing before you get the thread locked.  I'm not going to fight with you.  I'm about as un-patriotic as they come, so you even picking this fight with me over and over is funny.   It's a good thing I like you. 

Modifié par Addai67, 26 février 2012 - 08:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Reality of the world. That not all attained the same level of intellectual output, scientific discovery, technological advancement...etc. That's what I mean by advancement. Again, I am not talking about their worth. 

The reason that is dangerous is because it starts with the question- "of what value is this civilization to the modern world?"  Hence western history's pre-occupation with Greeks and Romans.

And I will agree that this perspective is limited and yes, a lot of historiography is Europe-centric. A lot of cultures are under-studied because they were not in contact with "the West."

But that's not what I was arguing for at all. On the contrary.

[slimgrin]

I was going to crack some joke about aryan supremacy and the noble origins of Western civilization via the Greeks and Romans...

Maybe not. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 26 février 2012 - 08:37 .

[JeffZero]

 Peter the Great's Russia; Rome (Republic and Empire); China and Japan.

Modifié par JeffZero, 26 février 2012 - 08:48 .

[JeffZero]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Major League wrote...
i've always wondered though, how come the mongols didn't just finish off a declining Byzantium? if you look at a map of the mongol empire, they went around them. Was i9t because the Mongols were allies with the christians?

They were allied with the Armenians, yes- against an alliance of Mamluks and Latin Christians.

Wasn't that much of an alliance. If IIRC correctly, Tyre just gave Mamluks passage and supplies. They didn't commit troops.

Hulagu's wife was of course a Nestorian Christian (as was the majority of the mongol army, they were Kipchak Turks), and that probably affected his policies. 

I believe that is accurate, yeah.

[chunkyman]

The Third Reich.

[wizardryforever]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Major League wrote...
i've always wondered though, how come the mongols didn't just finish off a declining Byzantium? if you look at a map of the mongol empire, they went around them. Was i9t because the Mongols were allies with the christians?

They were allied with the Armenians, yes- against an alliance of Mamluks and Latin Christians.

Wasn't that much of an alliance. If IIRC correctly, Tyre just gave Mamluks passage and supplies. They didn't commit troops.

Hulagu's wife was of course a Nestorian Christian (as was the majority of the mongol army, they were Kipchak Turks), and that probably affected his policies. 

Also, as I recall, they were never really in a position to strike into Byzantine territory.  Not really.  They could very well have turned south after conquering Hungary, but that's when the khan died and the horde was called back to Mongolia.  So it may have been a simple matter of "they never got to it."  From what I recall, Europe wasn't very important to them.  It was more along the lines of conquering it simply because they were already in the area.  It could also have been because they rightly saw Russia and Eastern Europe as being an easier target, and didn't really want to head into Byzantine lands without some land that they controlled nearby.

[CDRSkyShepard]

Dang, I was all excited to come in here and blurt out "THE ROMULAN STAR EMPIRE."

Then I read the OP. Welp, there goes that.

I do like feudal Japan and the Roman Empire, they're fascinating to study.