History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I understand, the Mongol armies didn't really operate by supply lines.

Of course, that would be impossible. My point, then, was that they could only rely on forage. This led me to suggest that Eastern Europe was probably particularly poor foraging country for their needs. Note that 'supplies' in this case includes manpower, which brings in the point about that already addressed by Dachs (I think).
 
Here's a question that I bet a lot of people have asked but I want to ask again: How lucky are we that the Cold War didn't kill us all?
 
Well, despite the rhetoric, rhetoric that still hasn't ended, we never were in danger of having all of us killed. Possibly a lot of us, but actually 'destroying the world' or 'making humans extinct' was never a possibility.

As to how close we came to that, not that much, I don't think. There were a few tense times. But no one on either side quite that insane.
 
Why did the Qing army became so ineffective after Qianlong's reign? During the reign of Qianlong, the Qing military proved itself during the Ten Great Campaigns, winning great victories and showing great skills mostly, with the exception of the Burmese war. So, how did this army became so ineffective only a few years later?

Are we talking White Lotus Rebellion or Opium War here?

The latter was very much a naval war, which the Qing haven't had much experience with (also being outgunned by industrial weaponry)

The former was a guerrila war, which the Qing weren't prepared to fight.
 
Are we talking White Lotus Rebellion or Opium War here?

The latter was very much a naval war, which the Qing haven't had much experience with (also being outgunned by industrial weaponry)
"Outgunned" is one thing. The descriptions of Qing forces during the First Opium War indicate that many, if not most, did not even use firearms. Nor did they possess adequate logistical support, frequently plundering their own territory to remain in supply. This stands in fairly stark contrast to the well-equipped musket-wielding forces, backed by one of the most impressive logistical systems in the world of that century, that destroyed the Zunghar qanate.
 
Would the fact that they were fighting in the inner empire, and not on the frontiers, made a difference? (lack of logistical provisions in the area concerned, poorly-trained troops compared to elite units on the frontiers, and so on?)
 
Here's a question that I bet a lot of people have asked but I want to ask again: How lucky are we that the Cold War didn't kill us all?

There were plenty of "close calls", at least as well as we can see in hindsight. Neither side really had much of an incentive to initiate the apocalypse of course, but the most important thing is that we don't have any other societies to compare ourselves to to determine if a nuclear holocaust is particularly likely.
 
Is there a reason you posted that thread in off topic instead of history?
 
It grew out of an argument in the Ask a Theologian thread.
 
Is it accurate to say that Nazism would have been "nothing out of the ordinary" in the ancient world?
 
Is it accurate to say that Nazism would have been "nothing out of the ordinary" in the ancient world?
No, it's wildly inaccurate. Nazism relied on a concept of the state and of nationalism that would have been utterly foreign to ancient humans in any part of the world.
 
No, it's wildly inaccurate. Nazism relied on a concept of the state and of nationalism that would have been utterly foreign to ancient humans in any part of the world.

I think it refers to the racial mythology.
 
I think it refers to the racial mythology.
You mean, the sort that was mostly popular among the SS and which featured a bizarrely bastardized mishmash of Norse polytheistic beliefs combined with all sorts of newer garbage?

I don't think that would be very familiar to ancient humans either.
 
With that in mind, some of the trappings of fascism, particularly in the interaction of the state and the party with the ordinary citizen, would have been nothing out of the ordinary. A citizen of the middle empire would have been entirely at home in a society which glorified militarism and the army to an almost fetishistic extent, and the fascist morality of emulating a lost golden age would have seemed entirely reasonable to someone like Cato. A Roman of the early Principate would be living under a government whose popular appeal rested almost entirely on the fact that it was better than the chaos which had preceded it. He would also have found the level of public veneration granted to Augustus not a million miles from that given to Hitler; Romans toasted 'Augustus, the father of the fatherland' after dinner just as Germans, publicly at least, chanted Nazi slogans.

The citizen of Rome or a Greek city would probably have had some sympathy with the concept of an Untermensch, being used to regarding slaves as subhuman beings who could not be trusted to tell the truth without torture, although it's not clear whether they would have agreed with race as the deciding factor between 'better' and 'worse' people. Furthermore, tight censorship was the norm from very shortly into the Principate: satire, the only purely Roman art form, is effectively what happens to the invectives of writers such as Catullus when it is no longer permissible to lampoon autocrats and members of the government. Furthermore, there are plenty of Roman urban legends about the emperor's arbitrary power, with one claiming that Tiberius put a man to death after the man showed him a way of turning cheap metals into gold, claiming that it would lower prices and so put people out of a job. So they probably would have found knocks on doors in the dead of night somewhat familiar.

Dachs is right, though, that the core elements of fascism and Nazism depend on Germanic folk mythology and a twisted interpretation of the philosophy of the few centuries preceding them.
 
I think it refers to the racial mythology.
Even more wildly out of line with any sort of thinking in the ancient world. I think it's fair to say that Nazi Racialism wouldn't have even been comprehensible to someone in the ancient world. Racial thinking didn't develop until the early modern era, and it relied on categories of identity that hadn't been solidified either.
 
Word "race" can be seen from time to time in Ancient texts translated to English - not so in the context of skin colour but often referring to what we call ethnic groups or nations - but I'm not sure if this is the fault of translation, or if their understanding of this word was similar to the 19th-20th century one.

Some examples of using "race" by Ancient writers - Paterculus:

Power of the Langobardi was broken, a race surpassing even the Germans in savagery.

In my opinion:

Not only "race" is a mistake in translation here (they were a tribe, not a race), but also "Germans" - it should be "Germanics" or "Germanic tribes".

Another example - Pliny the Elder:

There are five German races; the Vandili, parts of whom are the Burgundiones, the Varini, the Carini, and the Gutones: the Ingævones, forming a second race, a portion of whom are the Cimbri, the Teutoni, and the tribes of the Chauci. The Istævones, who join up to the Rhine, and to whom the Cimbri belong, are the third race; while the Hermiones, forming a fourth, dwell in the interior, and include the Suevi, the Hermunduri, the Chatti, and the Cherusci: the fifth race is that of the Peucini, who are also the Basternæ, adjoining the Daci previously mentioned.

But the original Latin text is:

Germanorum genera quinque: Vandili, quorum pars Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones. alterum genus Inguaeones, quorum pars Cimbri, Teutoni ac Chaucorum gentes. Proximi autem Rheno Istuaeones, quorum . . . . . mediterranei Hermiones, quorum Suebi, Hermunduri, Chatti, Cherusci. quinta pars Peucini, Basternae, supra dictis contermini Dacis. amnes clari in oceanum defluunt Guthalus, Visculus sive Vistla, Albis, Visurgis, Amisis, Rhenus, Mosa. introrsus vero nullo inferius nobilitate Hercynium iugum praetenditur.

So it seems that Latin "genus" (pl. "gentes") was translated as "race" ("Germanorum genera" as "German races").

On the other hand, Latin "gens" (pl. "gentes") was translated as "tribe" ("tribes").

But a modern Latin-English dictionary says:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genus

1. Biology A taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics. In taxonomic nomenclature the genus name is used, either alone or followed by a Latin adjective or epithet, to form the name of a species. See Table at taxonomy.
2. Logic A class of objects divided into subordinate species having certain common attributes.
3. A class, group, or kind with common attributes.

So question is, did the Ancient people really understand "genus" as 1., or rather as 2. or 3. (a class, group, or kind with common attributes).

It seems logical that translation "There are five Germanic kinds / groups" would make more sense than "There are five German races".

And when it comes to gens / gentes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens

Thus, in my opinion the translation above is faulty (as perhaps are many translations of Ancient texts, especially old ones).

In my opinion, "genus" should be translated not as "race" but as "ethnic group", "nation" or "major tribe".

On the other hand, "gens" should be translated as either "tribe" or "sub-tribe" or "clan" or "ethnic subgroup".
 
I think they would generally have agreed with the Nazis that certain groups of people shared certain characteristics, but I don't think they would have linked it to race. It's one thing to say that the French are rude, and quite another to say that the Germans, because they are of the same race as the French, must also be rude. After all, French rudeness could just be a product of French culture. I don't think that a Greek would have agreed that he had more kinship with the Celts to his north than with the Persians to his east.
 
I think they would generally have agreed with the Nazis that certain groups of people shared certain characteristics

Especially it seems that Ancient writers liked to attribute certain physical appearance to entire groups of people.

From some of those Ancient texts it appears, that entire tribes were literally "clones" of identical-looking people.

For example - Herodotus:

"(...) The Budini for their part, being a large and numerous nation, is all mightily blue-eyed and ruddy. (...) Above the Sauromatae, possessing the second region, dwell the Budini, whose territory is thickly wooded with trees of every kind. The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair. (...) Their country is thickly planted with trees of all manner of kinds. In the very woodiest part is a broad deep lake, surrounded by marshy ground with reeds growing on it. Here otters are caught, and beavers. (...)"

And, IIRC, Celts who invaded Rome under Brennus were described as very tall "giants" with blue eyes (I might be wrong about blue eyes).

And later the Teutones, the Ambrones and the Cimbri, were also described as all - no exceptions - being "giants" with blue eyes (like above).

Also Procopius of Caesarea (500 - 565 AD) wrote this about Slavic tribes:

Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color.

So it seems that all enmies of the Roman Empire and / or the Byzantine Empire were always described as "exceptional giants".

And of course, once again we have the "they do not differ at all from one another" claim.

And they all had brown / dark blond hair ("slightly ruddy") according to Procopius, as we can see. But, if we check other authors, then we can see them describing Slavic people as "all having blond hair" or even "all having dark hair". For example in Muslim sources the following could be found:

The earliest Arabic sources describe the Slavs as a people with pale skin, that turns "red" while under the sun, and blond hair.

Another source describes Slavic people in Bohemia as having dark hair (except for some of them, who were blond).

So sources mention all existing hair colours among the Slavs, but each single source mentions only one...

===================================

Back to Budini:

About the Budini writes also Pliny the Elder, contrasting them with dark-haired Agathyrsi (but at least he doesn't write that ALL of them are dark-haired - the fact that there is such thing like "typical appearance" of a certain group doesn't mean that all are clones).

Pliny the Elder:

The coast of the Sea of Azov, from the place called Taphrae at the end of the isthmus to the mouth of the Straits of Kertsch measures altogether 260 miles. After Taphrae, the interior of the mainland is occupied by the Auchetai and the Neuroi, in whose territories respectively are the sources of the Hypanis (the Southern Bug) and the Dnieper, the Geloni, Thyssagetae, Budini, Basilidae and Agathyrsi, the last a dark-haired people; above them are the Nomads and then the Cannibals, and after Lake Buces above the Sea of Azov the Sauromatae and Essedones. Along the coast, as far as the river Don, are the Maeotae from whom the sea receives its name, and last of all in the rear of the Maeotae are the Arimaspi. Then come the Ripaean Mountains and the region called Pterophorus, because of the feather-like snow continually falling there;

And Ammianus Marcellinus - he also provides interesting info on how various ethnic groups were often formed (in this case the Alans):

I am talking about the "incorporation [of others] under their own national name":

The Hister (the Danube), filled to overflowing by a great number of tributaries, flows past the Sauromatians, and these extend as far as the river Tanaïs (the Don), which separates Asia from Europe. On the other side of this river the Halani (the Alans), so called from the mountain range of the same name, inhabit the measureless wastes of Scythia; and by repeated victories they gradually wore down the peoples whom they met and like the Persians incorporated them under their own national name. Among these the Nervii (the Neuri) inhabit the interior of the country near the lofty, precipitous peaks nipped by the north winds and benumbed with ice and snow. Behind these are the Vidini (the Budini) and the Geloni [the Geloni were also mentioned already by Herodotus], exceedingly savage races (...) On the frontier of the Geloni are the Agathyrsi, who checker their bodies and dye their hair with a blue colour - the common people with a few small marks, but the nobles with more and broader spots of dye. Beyond these are the Melanchlaenae and the Anthropophagi, who according to report lead a nomadic life

Once again someone translated as "races" what should be translated as tribes, etc.

==================================

And Medieval Saxon chronicler Helmold von Bosau (1120 - 1177) wrote about Old Prussians:

(...) Prussians have not yet recognized our faith, but they have many natural qualities: they are very humane towards fellow creatures who find themselves in a hard situation, because they set sail to rescue those who get missing at sea and those who are harmed by pirates; they give aid to such people. They do not value gold and silver, but they have exotic fur coats in abundance, smell of which causes the deadly poison of pride in our world. And they consider these furs as worthless as manure (...) This is why in exchange for woolen clothes, which we call faldones, they give us such precious hides of martens. We could say many praiseworthy things about customs of these people, if only they were believers of the only faith of Christ; but quite the contrary, they are savagely persecuting all missionaries of this faith. It was in their country where famous Czech bishop Adalbert embelished his forehead with a martyr's crown. Until our times, when foreigners visit their lands, they allow such foreigners to live among them, but refuse them access to forests and springs. Because they think that presence of Christians in such places causes their profanation. (...) These people have blue eyes, red faces and long hair. (...)

Red faces... :) Typical Prussian must be this guy (except for long hair):

http://trialx.com/curebyte/2012/08/26/pictures-for-red-face/

Spoiler :
 
So it seems that all enmies of the Roman Empire and / or the Byzantine Empire were always described as "exceptional giants".

The barbarians of Europe were, on average, taller than the Romans. Roman soldiers averaged around 5 foot 6, while Northern Europeans were the tallest in Europe throughout most of the pre-modern period: indeed, the Dutch still are. Diets in Germanic areas tended to be high in protein, geography demanded a vigorous lifestyle, and the Celts played a great deal of sports which the Romans do not seem to have done. Indeed, there was no equivalent of PE in the Roman educational curriculum, while Greek youths had their gymnastics and athletics, on which the Romans looked down. It's probably worth noting that the Praetorians were initially recruited from the more urbanised areas of Italy. You would normally expect city-dwellers to be taller than countrymen in such a society, and there's certainly a common tendency to recruit elite forces (such as the Grenadier Guards, the French Imperial Guard, the Potsdam Giants and so on) from peculiarly tall recruits. So when those regiments, as they occasionally did, went on campaign, they would have found the barbarians less gigantic than their comrades had led them to believe.

The Latin word gens and the Greek ἔθνος are often translated race, but certainly mean 'tribe'. Gentes in Rome were the extended family clans, such as the Julii, the Cornelii and the Claudii, which often competed for power and influence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom