History questions not worth their own thread III

[ParkCungHee]

Note that the Invasions of Japan wouldn't have happened had the Mongols not been in complete control over Korea

I think that's fairly backwards. The Mongols took a noticeably greater interest in Korea once it was planned as a launchpoint for the invasion, and this lead to a much greater deal of direct mongol control.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Other than Pravda, can anyone think of any official sources from the Soviet Union that are likely available in English and commented on foreign or global affairs?

 

[Tee Kay]

TASS produced a "Soviet News" monthly (or weekly, can't remember) that IIRC was distributed via the Soviet Embassy in London. My uni library has a collection, I'll have to check the exact title and publication details.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So I'm going to be running a spycraft game set in 1920s Shanghai. Any particularly colorful characters from the warlord era anyone can recommend for entertainment value?

 

[Tee Kay]

So I'm going to be running a spycraft game set in 1920s Shanghai. Any particularly colorful characters from the warlord era anyone can recommend for entertainment value?

These guys

Also, Feng "Jesus" Yuxiang was probably the most "colourful" out of the major warlords. There's also Zhang "Dogmeat" Zongchang who you might like to look into if you're looking for dark humour.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Other than Pravda, can anyone think of any official sources from the Soviet Union that are likely available in English and commented on foreign or global affairs?

Radio Moscow World Service provided English comment on foreign and global affairs, both explicitly and through the bias of their news coverage. BBC Monitoring produced 'Summary of World Broadcasts, Part I, [Former] USSR' which had daily digests of Radio Moscow content from 1949 to 31st March 2001. I don't think it has an ISSN number, because it was sold directly to subscribers. You should find it in major research libraries. The US Government had something similar, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service.

Oxford library record

 

[J. pride]

What was the population of medieval Europe and the Middle East? Specifically areas like Egypt, Italy, Mesopotamia (before the Mongol conquests), Anatolia, Spain, Holy Roman Empire (Central European part), France and Persia? It would be helpful if you could provide multiple dates or whatever is possible.

 

[General Pilates]

What was the population of medieval Europe and the Middle East? Specifically areas like Egypt, Italy, Mesopotamia (before the Mongol conquests), Anatolia, Spain, Holy Roman Empire (Central European part), France and Persia? It would be helpful if you could provide multiple dates or whatever is possible.

Egypt: As far as I know it was around 3-4 million. I think it fell to 2.5 after the Ottomans took it.

Persia: Persia had 5 million people before the Mongol conquests, and 3.5 million after. I'm assuming the number rebounded by Timur.

Mesopotamia: Not sure on the numbers during the height of the Abbasids. I think that just before the Mongols it was 1.5-1.75 and fell to 1-1.25 million afterwards. I don't think the population rose a lot again until the 18th century.

 

[J. pride]

Egypt: As far as I know it was around 3-4 million. I think it fell to 2.5 after the Ottomans took it.

Persia: Persia had 5 million people before the Mongol conquests, and 3.5 million after. I'm assuming the number rebounded by Timur.

Mesopotamia: Not sure on the numbers during the height of the Abbasids. I think that just before the Mongols it was 1.5-1.75 and fell to 1-1.25 million afterwards. I don't think the population rose a lot again until the 18th century.

Interesting, I would have thought that Egypt would have been more populous than Persia. As far as Mesopotamia is concerned, I do have some reservations on your numbers because I would have expected a larger population than that but more importantly the population decline of only 500,000 people in the aftermath of the mongol conquests sounds a bit unrealistic considering that I have read somewhere that the whole of Baghdad (which is claimed to have 1,000,000 inhabitants) was massacred and the whole irrigation system of Mesopotamia destroyed .

How do these numbers compare to their European counterparts of Italy, France, Germany and Spain and also what was the population of various Byzantine realms like Anatolia, Greece, Thrace and the Balkans?

 

[General Pilates]

Interesting, I would have thought that Egypt would have been more populous than Persia. As far as Mesopotamia is concerned, I do have some reservations on your numbers because I would have expected a larger population than that but more importantly the population decline of only 500,000 people in the aftermath of the mongol conquests sounds a bit unrealistic considering that I have read somewhere that the whole of Baghdad (which is claimed to have 1,000,000 inhabitants) was massacred and the whole irrigation system of Mesopotamia destroyed .

I would really doubt that, on Mesopotamia. Helagu claims around 200,000 dead in Baghdad. Why would be underestimate his own casualties? Baghdad has a population of over a 1,000,000 at the apex of the Abbasids. The Irrigation systems were already decaying from lack of use due to civil wars and the weakness of the Abbasid caliphs who could no longer keep the old ones active. Here is the link I used:

http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=mongol.htm

As soon as they were gathered together on open ground they were mercilessly butchered. The number killed varies according to the source Persian accounts claim between 800,000 and 2 million slaughtered, while Hulegu, in a letter to Louis IX of France, boasted of 200,000 slain. In a display of the discipline which explains much of their success, Mongol troops had stood on the walls of the helpless city awaiting orders.

On Egypt, I'd be really careful with my numbers. It's really more of an estimate than anything; I've got nary an idea of a credible source on Egypt's numbers before the Ottomans. I'm fairly sure on the post-Mamluks number of 2.5 million, however.

 

[J. pride]

I would really doubt that, on Mesopotamia. Helagu claims around 200,000 dead in Baghdad. Why would be underestimate his own casualties? Baghdad has a population of over a 1,000,000 at the apex of the Abbasids. The Irrigation systems were already decaying from lack of use due to civil wars and the weakness of the Abbasid caliphs who could no longer keep the old ones active. Here is the link I used:

I take your point on Baghdad not being the city it used to be or even that the Irrigation system might have been deteriorating but if the Mongols only killed .5 million people; that would be inconsistent to their previous conquests in Persia and Transoxiana which experienced a 70% decline in population. Also it might have been true that Hulega killed 200,000 people but that was direct consequence of the siege or the amount of people that the Mongols directly killed. I think it is safe to say that this number would be higher if you considered post siege conditions which might have included famine, disease and such. What i have stated is mere observation of what happened to other places in similar conditions as there is not much historical research done on the Abbasids and primary resources are also lacking due to the numerous invasions and destruction.

On Egypt, I'd be really careful with my numbers. It's really more of an estimate than anything; I've got nary an idea of a credible source on Egypt's numbers before the Ottomans. I'm fairly sure on the post-Mamluks number of 2.5 million, however.

Is there any particular reason for a decline in population in Ottoman Egypt?

The reason I asked the question was to compare the population of different regions in the medieval era but thus so far Byzantine and European figures are not mentioned which is rather surprising considering that those areas are better studied and researched; anybody have figures for Italy, Anatolia...?

 

[General Pilates]

I take your point on Baghdad not being the city it used to be or even that the Irrigation system might have been deteriorating but if the Mongols only killed .5 million people; that would be inconsistent to their previous conquests in Persia and Transoxiana which experienced a 70% decline in population. Also it might have been true that Hulega killed 200,000 people but that was direct consequence of the siege or the amount of people that the Mongols directly killed. I think it is safe to say that this number would be higher if you considered post siege conditions which might have included famine, disease and such. What i have stated is mere observation of what happened to other places in similar conditions as there is not much historical research done on the Abbasids and primary resources are also lacking due to the numerous invasions and destruction.

How is a loss of 33% of the population not high? It gives 1200 and 1300 numbers. They would have had around 40 years to recover. I would assume the highest figures would give deaths at 700,000, but that's a bit high. The extra 300,000 that was besides the siege is the rural population that was killed.

Is there any particular reason for a decline in population in Ottoman Egypt?

Neglect, I would assume. Its ironic, actually, when you consider that the Mamluks did the same thing to Palestine and Syria when they took it.

 

[J. pride]

How is a loss of 33% of the population not high? It gives 1200 and 1300 numbers. They would have had around 40 years to recover. I would assume the highest figures would give deaths at 700,000, but that's a bit high. The extra 300,000 that was besides the siege is the rural population that was killed.

Ok, I take your point but I still maintain some reservation mainly due to the lack of historical evidence. Back to my original question, What would have been the population of Mesopotamia at its apex?

Neglect, I would assume. Its ironic, actually, when you consider that the Mamluks did the same thing to Palestine and Syria when they took it.

Did the the black plague and other outbreaks play a role? Because I would assume that neglect alone isnt enought to cause a 50% decline but then again I might be wrong in my calculation. As far as Syria is considered, wouldnt you agree that Timurlenk and the Mongols played a more prominent role in that decline?

 

[General Pilates]

Ok, I take your point but I still maintain some reservation mainly due to the lack of historical evidence. Back to my original question, What would have been the population of Mesopotamia at its apex?

More than 6 million is my best guess.

Did the the black plague and other outbreaks play a role? Because I would assume that neglect alone isnt enought to cause a 50% decline but then again I might be wrong in my calculation. As far as Syria is considered, wouldnt you agree that Timurlenk and the Mongols played a more prominent role in that decline?

The Black plague is one part, yes. 200 years of neglect and bad irrigation helped.

On Syria, I have found that the blame is shared. Yes, both the Mongols and Timur damaged Syria. However, it was the Mamelukes who relented in repairing the damaged land, and often took the border areas for their soldiers to loot for more provisions. They treated the parts of their empire beyond Egypt with a fair bit of neglect, for different reasons. Palestine was a precautionary measure on their part to make sure the Franks never came back. They devastated the coastal cities extremely heavily. Syria was more of a geographic problem. It was treated as a fortress rather than land which could be used for living purposes(at least the northern part).

 

[J. pride]

On Syria, I have found that the blame is shared. Yes, both the Mongols and Timur damaged Syria. However, it was the Mamelukes who relented in repairing the damaged land, and often took the border areas for their soldiers to loot for more provisions. They treated the parts of their empire beyond Egypt with a fair bit of neglect, for different reasons. Palestine was a precautionary measure on their part to make sure the Franks never came back. They devastated the coastal cities extremely heavily. Syria was more of a geographic problem. It was treated as a fortress rather than land which could be used for living purposes(at least the northern part).

A thorough and well thought analysis; mostly agreed.

More than 6 million is my best guess.

How would that compare to places like Italy and the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

How much are neo-pagan movements actually connected to earlier pagan religions? Like are they reconstructions, sort of based on them, or just making stuff up as they go along?

 

[ParkCungHee]

In the case of Neo-Druidism, they basically did this:
First, take everything that is known about Druidism.
Second? Ignore it.

 

[Plotinus]

How much are neo-pagan movements actually connected to earlier pagan religions? Like are they reconstructions, sort of based on them, or just making stuff up as they go along?

Both.

There's a wide variety of neo-pagan religions, but I think pretty much all of them are combinations of genuinely antique elements with modern innovations. The differences between them aren't so much in how much the proportions vary, but in how much the practitioners acknowledge the existence of modern innovations.

Thus, you will find plenty of Wiccans and the like who believe that Gerald Gardner really stumbled upon an ancient religion, which predated Christianity, and whose earlier practitioners had been the victims of the witch hunts, and that they themselves are now following this ancient religion. And you will find other Wiccans who are perfectly aware that Gardner made at least half of it up, but aren't bothered by this because they like it.

The definitive book on this subject is The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton. I have not read it, but I have both heard him speak and met him, and if he writes as charmingly and as intelligently as he speaks, it will be a good read.

 

[xchen08]

How does that work anyway? Isn't a core part of religion the access to some transcendental truth? That conducting the appropriate rituals and following the laws serve some purpose? If you admit that all that or most of that is made up by some random guy, aren't you just playing an elaborate game of make-believe?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How does that work anyway? Isn't a core part of religion the access to some transcendental truth? That conducting the appropriate rituals and following the laws serve some purpose? If you admit that all that or most of that is made up by some random guy, aren't you just playing an elaborate game of make-believe?

Just because a ritual was created by a human wouldn't mean it isn't in some way transcendental . . .