The massive barbarian uprisings are one of my favorite parts of Civ3. Can anyone think of any historical examples of this? The first one that springs to mind is the Germanic barbarian invasions of the 5th century the invaded the Western Roman Empire. A population boom created lots of young healthy males, who were itching for a piece of the dying Rome. Any others?

In Russian history there is, because of the extreme nature of Tsarism, a tradition of peasant rebellions that usually ended up dragging the many fringe nationalities of the empire into the fray, with cities being sacked, etc. Pugachev was the most famous, but there were others: Bolotnikov, Rjazin, Bulavin, etc.

Do Latin American banana republics count as "barbarian uprisings?"

The incursions into Rome were the most famous, possibly equalled in repute by the Pictish and Saxon invasions of England in the fifth century A.D.

Howabout Mongol invasions of Europe and Middle East in 12th & 13th centuries?

Forgot about those. :) Yeah, that was a pretty wild period. Genghis Khan's progeny even came up against the Mameluks and the Teutonic Knights at one point.

And won - Europe didn't havea decent army left. The Mongols only went home because they had heard Genghis was dead and they all went back to fight over who inherited what...

The Norse invasions of britain and europe around the 8th century come to mind.

WWII should count, too. :p Massive scale barbarism that hadn't been seen for... well, just over 20 years. :rolleyes:

Vikings were not barbarians.They had a writing called the runic writing and there are 1000-year old sagas in Iceland(Icelandic remained very close to Norse.)

Originally posted by bigfatron
And won - Europe didn't havea decent army left. The Mongols only went home because they had heard Genghis was dead and they all went back to fight over who inherited what... Batu's armies in East Europe went home cause Ogodei died, not Genghis Khan. Genghis had died earlier, during the conclusion of the attk on Xixia in NW China. His successor was Ogodei, the third son.

Batu went back to attend the grand meeting with some grandiose name I can't name at the moment to decide who shall be the next Great Khan. The choice fell on Mongke and Batu went back to rule over the Russian domains as lord of the Golden Horde.

The Mongols never did return to finish the job in East Europe as Europe at this time was poor and simply wasn't attractive enough, as compared with the Mid-east, India, China etc.

Originally posted by Damien
Vikings were not barbarians.They had a writing called the runic writing and there are 1000-year old sagas in Iceland(Icelandic remained very close to Norse.)
I agree with you - they were also traders all across europe, and had organized gov't and social structures, etc etc etc. (Tho I don't think literacy has anything to do with qualifying as civilized) But they were barbarians to all the people who they sacked, looted, and killed - whose decendants ended up writing the history those of us in the anglo-saxon, french, and german worlds learn.

What are barbarians anyway?
The Mongols were mentioned here. Sure for the Christian Europeans they were babarians. Same with the Germanic tribes from a Roman perspective. And so on.
But babarians implies a lower or weaker culture, which is only right from the non-babarians point of view, whoever these may be.
So if the ones mentioned above were babarians for the Europeans or Romans, 'Banana republics' in Latin America are equally babarians for rmsharpe.
A Stalinist could call Solidarnosc a 'babarian uprising'.

The second part is about the term uprising. An invasion from 'abroad' (as it was the case with the Germanic tribes and the Mongols) is no uprising as far as I know. Vrylakas examples are what I would regard as uprisings.

The question is, how do you define "barbarian" - is that a militant rebel, or is it someone that is willing to take drastic measures to accomplish their goals (skyjackings, for example?)

Apparently Germans don't like the term barbarian invasion, they prefer "wandering of the peoples" or something.

To virtually all cultures, a "barbarian" was always someone from abroad/outside of their cultural frontiers. I.e., to the Greeks, the Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians and Romans were Barbarians alike, because they spoke no Greek and had customs and manners the Greeks had difficulties of understanding.
The Romans had a very clear definition of Barbarians, as those were the ones living outside of the Roman Empire.

"Barbarian" thus is a somewhat racist definition, out of place in our modern-day civilization.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
"Barbarian" thus is a somewhat racist definition, out of place in our modern-day civilization.

Stefan,

Don't be so quick to write-off the word "barbarian". My Oxford dictionary gives the following definitions of the word "barbarian":
noun
1. an uncultured or brutish person; a lout

2. a member of a primitive community or tribe

adjective
1. rough and uncultured

2. uncivilized [orig.of any foreigner with a diferent language or customs]


When used as a noun to describe "a member of a primitive community or tribe" the term is pejorative, and depending on the context in which it is used might be racist.

When used to describe soccer or football hooligans of any nation the term "barbarian" is quite appropriate.

It is also quite appropriate to describe the members of al Qaeda who perpetrated the barbaric attacks on innocent civilians as "barbarians".

The term "barbarian" will probably be relevant for as long as humankind exist, unfortunately.

If I remember correctly, barbarian means a person who is not from greece. That is from the beginning. :-) Ofcourse words meanings do change with time.

Original meaning: People who don't speak the Greek language. All the Greeks could make of what they said was "bar bar bar bar bar"

Originally posted by The Rainmaker
All the Greeks could make of what they said was "bar bar bar bar bar"
After a long journey, they just wanted to know where they could find a refreshing beer. :crazyeye: